European and United States regulatory agencies recently issued warnings against the use of dual renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockade therapy through the combined use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or aliskiren in any patient, based on absence of benefit for most patients and increased risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension, and renal failure. Special emphasis was made not to use these combinations in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The door was left open to therapy individualization, especially for patients with heart failure, when the combined use of an ARB and ACEI is considered absolutely essential, although renal function, electrolytes and blood pressure should be closely monitored. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were not affected by this warning despite increased risk of hyperkalemia. We now critically review the risks associated with dual RAS blockade and answer the following questions: What safety issues are associated with dual RAS blockade? Can the safety record of dual RAS blockade be improved? Is it worth trying to improve the safety record of dual RAS blockade based on the potential benefits of the combination? Is dual RAS blockade dead? What is the role of mineralocorticoid antagonists in combination with other RAS blocking agents: RAAS blockade?

BackgroundThe mortality of dialysis patients is 10- to 100-fold higher than in the general population. Baseline serum PTH levels, and more recently, changes in serum PTH levels (ΔPTH) over time, have been associated to mortality in dialysis patients.MethodsWe explored the relationship between ΔPTH over 1 year with mortality over the next year in a prospective cohort of 115 prevalent hemodialysis patients from a single center that had median baseline iPTH levels within guideline recommendations.ResultsMedian baseline iPTH levels were 205 (116.5, 400) pg/ml. ΔiPTH between baseline and 1 year was 85.2 ± 57.1 pg/ml. During the second year of follow-up, 27 patients died. ΔiPTH was significantly higher in patients who survived (+157.30 ± 25.82 pg/ml) than in those who died (+39.03 ± 60.95 pg/ml), while baseline iPTH values were not significantly different. The highest mortality (48%) was observed in patients with a decrease in ΔiPTH (ΔiPTH quartile 1, negative ΔiPTH) and the lowest (12%) mortality in quartile 3 ΔiPTH (ΔiPTH increase 101–300 pg/ml). In a logistic regression model, ΔiPTH was associated with mortality with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.998 (95% CI 0.996–0999, p = 0.038). In multivariable analysis, mortality risk was 73% and 88% lower for patients with ΔiPTH 0–100 pg/ml and 101–300 pg/ml, respectively, than for those with a decrease in ΔiPTH. In patients with a decrease in ΔiPTH, the OR for death was 4.131 (1.515–11.27)(p = 0.006).ConclusionsIn prevalent hemodialysis patients with median baseline iPTH values within the guideline recommended range, a decrease in ΔiPTH was associated with higher mortality. Further studies are required to understand the mechanisms and therapeutic implications of this observation that challenges current clinical practice.

Eculizumab is an anti-C5 antibody that inhibits C5 cleavage and prevents the generation of the terminal complement complex C5b-9. Eculizumab is licensed to treat paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria or atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS). Clinical trials are ongoing for C3 glomerulopathy. Given the unfamiliarity of physicians with these rare diseases and the variability of clinical presentation, a delayed initiation of eculizumab therapy is common. Thus, the question arises as to what extent improvement of kidney function may be expected when patients have been dialysis dependent for weeks or months already when eculizumab is initiated. Furthermore, given the high cost and potential adverse effects of eculizumab, the question arises of when to stop therapy because of futility when patients with kidney-only manifestations remain dialysis dependent. In literature reports, eculizumab was stopped as early as after 3 weeks because the patient remained dialysis dependent. In this issue of CKJ, Inman et al. report on eculizumab-induced reversal of dialysis-dependent kidney failure from C3 glomerulonephritis, illustrating both the potential benefit of eculizumab for this complement-mediated disease and the need for lengthy therapy—dialysis independency was reached after 5 months of eculizumab. Indeed, there are reports of renal function recovery when eculizumab was initiated after 4 months on dialysis and of recovery of renal function 2.0–3.5 months after initiation of eculizumab in dialysis-dependent patients with C3 glomerulopathy or aHUS.