RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The comparative effects of specific blood pressure (BP) lowering treatments on patient-important outcomes following kidney transplantation are uncertain. Our 2009 Cochrane review found that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) improved graft function and prevented graft loss, while the evidence for other BP-lowering treatments was limited. This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 3 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating any BP-lowering agent in recipients of a functioning kidney transplant for at least two weeks were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised using the random-effects model and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) processes. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, graft loss, and kidney function. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies (8706 participants) were included. One study evaluated treatment in children. The overall risk of bias was unclear to high across all domains. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, CCBs probably reduce all-cause death (23 studies, 3327 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) and graft loss (24 studies, 3577 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may make little or no difference to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (11 studies, 2250 participants: MD 1.89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.48; I2 = 48%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (13 studies, 906 participants: RR 10.8, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may reduce systolic BP (SBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -5.83 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.42; I2 = 13%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (DBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -3.98 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.98 to -1.99; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). CCBs have uncertain effects on proteinuria. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (7 studies, 702 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), graft loss (6 studies, 718 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGFR (4 studies, 509 participants: MD -2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -7.66 to 2.73; I2 = 64%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (4 studies, 388 participants: RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ACEi may reduce proteinuria (5 studies, 441 participants: MD -0.33 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.01; I2 = 67%; low certainty evidence) but had uncertain effects on SBP and DBP. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (6 studies, 1041 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGRF (5 studies, 300 participants: MD -1.91 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -6.20 to 2.38; I2 = 57%; low certainty evidence), and acute rejection (4 studies, 323 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ARBs may reduce graft loss (6 studies, 892 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), SBP (10 studies, 1239 participants: MD -3.73 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.02 to -0.44; I2 = 63%; moderate certainty evidence) and DBP (9 studies, 1086 participants: MD -2.75 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.18; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty evidence), but has uncertain effects on proteinuria. The effects of CCBs, ACEi or ARB compared to placebo or standard care alone on cardiovascular outcomes (including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke) or other adverse events were uncertain. The comparative effects of ACEi plus ARB dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone were rarely evaluated. Head-to-head comparisons of ACEi, ARB or thiazide versus CCB, ACEi versus ARB, CCB or ACEi versus alpha- or beta-blockers, or ACEi plus CCB dual therapy versus ACEi or CCB monotherapy were scarce. No studies reported outcome data for cancer or life participation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For kidney transplant recipients, the use of CCB therapy to reduce BP probably reduces death and graft loss compared to placebo or standard care alone, while ARB may reduce graft loss. The effects of ACEi and ARB compared to placebo or standard care on other patient-centred outcomes were uncertain. The effects of dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone and the comparative effects of different treatments were uncertain.
Asunto(s)
Antihipertensivos , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio , Hipertensión , Trasplante de Riñón , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Bloqueadores de los Canales de Calcio/uso terapéutico , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Supervivencia de Injerto/efectos de los fármacos , Rechazo de Injerto/prevención & control , Causas de Muerte , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Adulto , Tasa de Filtración Glomerular/efectos de los fármacos , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with high risks of premature chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular diseases, cardiovascular death and impaired quality of life. People with diabetes are more likely to develop kidney impairment, and approximately one in three adults with diabetes have CKD. People with CKD and diabetes experience a substantially higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown potential effects in preventing kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes. However, new trials are emerging rapidly, and evidence synthesis is essential to summarising cumulative evidence. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of SGLT2 inhibitors for people with CKD and diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 November 2023 using a search strategy designed by an Information Specialist. Studies in the Register are continually identified through regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies were eligible if they evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo, standard care or other glucose-lowering agents in people with CKD and diabetes. CKD includes all stages (from 1 to 5), including dialysis patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary review outcomes were all-cause death, 3-point and 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, and kidney failure. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies randomising 65,241 people with CKD and diabetes were included. SGLT2 inhibitors with or without other background treatments were compared to placebo, standard care, sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, or insulin. In the majority of domains, the risks of bias in the included studies were low or unclear. No studies evaluated the treatment in children or in people treated with dialysis. No studies compared SGLT2 inhibitors with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or tirzepatide. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors decreased the risk of all-cause death (20 studies, 44,397 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; high certainty) and cardiovascular death (16 studies, 43,792 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; I2 = 29%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably make little or no difference to the risk of fatal or nonfatal MI (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14; I2 = 24%; moderate certainty), and fatal or nonfatal stroke (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably decrease 3-point MACE (7 studies, 38,320 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; I2 = 46%; moderate certainty), and 4-point MACE (4 studies, 23,539 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96; I2 = 77%; moderate certainty), and decrease hospital admission due to heart failure (6 studies, 28,339 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 17%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease creatinine clearance (1 study, 132 participants: MD -2.63 mL/min, 95% CI -5.19 to -0.07; low certainty) and probably decrease the doubling of serum creatinine (2 studies, 12,647 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89; I2 = 53%; moderate certainty). SGLT2 inhibitors decrease the risk of kidney failure (6 studies, 11,232 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and kidney composite outcomes (generally reported as kidney failure, kidney death with or without ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) (7 studies, 36,380 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78; I2 = 25%; high certainty) compared to placebo. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors incur less hypoglycaemia (16 studies, 28,322 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and hypoglycaemia requiring third-party assistance (14 studies, 26,478 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and probably decrease the withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (15 studies, 16,622 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty). The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on eGFR, amputation and fracture were uncertain. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on fatigue, life participation, or lactic acidosis. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to standard care alone, sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitors, or insulin were uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2 inhibitors alone or added to standard care decrease all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and kidney failure and probably decrease major cardiovascular events while incurring less hypoglycaemia compared to placebo in people with CKD and diabetes.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2 , Humanos , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/efectos adversos , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/complicaciones , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Sesgo , Causas de Muerte , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Compuestos de Bencidrilo/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Bencidrilo/efectos adversos , Glucósidos/uso terapéutico , Glucósidos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The expanding options in advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) present challenges in treatment selection. Persistence analysis assesses drug durability in real-world settings, acting as a surrogate marker for medication efficacy and tolerance. Unlike traditional comparative studies, persistence analysis provides insights extending beyond the initial year of treatment. AIM: To provide real-world evidence on treatment effectiveness, tolerability and preferences of physicians and patients regarding various advanced therapies for IBD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of observational studies up to March 2023 assessing advanced therapies' persistence in UC and CD. Advanced therapies under examination included infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, golimumab, certolizumab and tofacitinib. We pooled the persistence of each agent and conducted a meta-analysis to compare the persistence of newer agents with traditional TNF inhibitors (TNFi)-specifically infliximab and adalimumab. RESULTS: Among 63 observational studies, vedolizumab had the highest 1-year persistence in UC (73.8%, 95% CI: 70.0%-77.6%) and ustekinumab in CD (77.5%, 95% CI: 72.9%-82.1%). Compared to TNFi, vedolizumab demonstrated increased persistence with a relative risk (RR) of 1.30 (95% CI: 1.19-1.41) for UC and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.09-1.20) for CD at 1 year, while ustekinumab demonstrated a RR of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23) for CD at 1 year. Vedolizumab exhibited sustained increased persistence in UC over 2 years compared to TNFi (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.54). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis highlights the superior persistence of ustekinumab and vedolizumab over TNFi, and offers valuable insights for clinicians navigating the challenging landscape of UC and CD therapeutic choices.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales , Fármacos Gastrointestinales , Pirimidinas , Humanos , Fármacos Gastrointestinales/uso terapéutico , Ustekinumab/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad de Crohn/tratamiento farmacológico , Colitis Ulcerosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , Piperidinas/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina , Nefropatías Diabéticas , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Causas de Muerte , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Nefropatías Diabéticas/prevención & control , Quimioterapia CombinadaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the prevalence and types of oral adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) in people who received at least one dose of any type of vaccine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a bibliographic search about oral AEFIs in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Ovid from database inception to November 07, 2022. Risk of bias was assessed using the MURAD or the Quality In Prognosis Studies tools. Random-effects proportional meta-analysis was applied. RESULTS: A total of 119 studies involving 343 people were eligible. These reported AEFIs occurred following administration of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine, anti-influenza vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and anti-smallpox vaccine. The most common to be affected in vaccinated people were buccal mucosa (63.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 33.4-88.2) and lips (55.7%; 95% CI, 41.1-69.8). The most prevalent oral AEFIs were ulceration (55.2%; 95% CI 24.4-84.0), swelling (65.2%; 95% CI 34.9-89.8), and burning sensation (18.3%; 95% CI 7.9-31.8). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanisms underlying oral AEFIs should be further investigated to promptly recognize oral manifestations and provide optimal management for people undergoing vaccination.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Hypertension affects 50-90% of kidney transplant recipients and is associated with cardiovascular disease and graft loss. We aimed to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering agents in people with a functioning kidney transplant. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through to October 2023. RCTs evaluating blood pressure lowering agents administered for at least 2 weeks in people with a functioning kidney transplant with and without preexisting hypertension were eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The primary outcome was graft loss. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects network meta-analysis, with treatment effects expressed as an odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE for network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies (7547 adults) were included. Two studies were conducted in children. No blood pressure-lowering agent reduced the risk of graft loss, withdrawal because of adverse events, death, cardiovascular or kidney outcomes compared with placebo/other drug class. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker therapy may incur greater odds of hyperkalemia compared with calcium channel blockers [odds ratio (OR) 5.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.47-12.16; and OR 8.67, 95% CI 2.65-28.36; low certainty evidence, respectively). CONCLUSION: The evidentiary basis for the comparative benefits and safety of blood pressure lowering agents in people with a functioning kidney transplant is limited to guide treatment decision-making.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Trasplante de Riñón , Niño , Adulto , Humanos , Presión Sanguínea , Trasplante de Riñón/efectos adversos , Metaanálisis en Red , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Haemodialysis (HD) requires safe and effective anticoagulation to prevent clot formation within the extracorporeal circuit during dialysis treatments to enable adequate dialysis and minimise adverse events, including major bleeding. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide a more predictable dose, reliable anticoagulant effects and be simpler to administer than unfractionated heparin (UFH) for HD anticoagulation, but may accumulate in the kidneys and lead to bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation strategies (including both heparin and non-heparin drugs) for long-term HD in people with kidney failure. Any intervention preventing clotting within the extracorporeal circuit without establishing anticoagulation within the patient, such as regional citrate, citrate enriched dialysate, heparin-coated dialysers, pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (HDF), and saline flushes were also included. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to November 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating anticoagulant agents administered during HD treatment in adults and children with kidney failure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. Treatment effects were estimated using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 113 studies randomising 4535 participants. The risk of bias in each study was adjudicated as high or unclear for most risk domains. Compared to UFH, LMWH had uncertain effects on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis (3 studies, 91 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.42; I2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate anticoagulation may lower the risk of minor bleeding compared to UFH (2 studies, 82 participants: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No studies reported data comparing regional citrate to UFH on risks of extracorporeal circuit thrombosis and major bleeding. The effects of very LMWH, danaparoid, prostacyclin, direct thrombin inhibitors, factor XI inhibitors or heparin-grafted membranes were uncertain due to insufficient data. The effects of different LMWH, different doses of LMWH, and the administration of LMWH anticoagulants using inlet versus outlet bloodline or bolus versus infusion were uncertain. Evidence to compare citrate to another citrate or control was scant. The effects of UFH compared to no anticoagulant therapy or different doses of UFH were uncertain. Death, dialysis vascular access outcomes, blood transfusions, measures of anticoagulation effect, and costs of interventions were rarely reported. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and hospital admissions. Adverse events were inconsistently and rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulant strategies, including UFH and LMWH, have uncertain comparative risks on extracorporeal circuit thrombosis, while major bleeding and minor bleeding were not adequately reported. Regional citrate may decrease minor bleeding, but the effects on major bleeding and extracorporeal circuit thrombosis were not reported. Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different forms of anticoagulant strategies for HD is of low and very low certainty, as available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on important clinical outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Renal , Trombosis , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Heparina/efectos adversos , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Diálisis Renal , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/efectos adversos , Ácido Cítrico , Citratos , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Trombosis/etiología , Trombosis/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Background: Percutaneous renal biopsy (PRB) may subject patients to emotional distress and pain before and during the biopsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of complementary/non-pharmacological interventions such as music therapy (MT) on anxiety, pain and satisfaction in renal patients undergoing PRB. Methods: A prospective, single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled two-arm trial was conducted. Patients ≥18 years of age, hospitalized at the Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit (Bari, Italy) and scheduled for PRB were screened. Participants were assigned to standard treatment (CG) or to the music therapy (MT) intervention group. Participants in the MT group received standard care and an MT intervention by a certified music therapist qualified in guided imagery and music. The CG patients received the standard of care. MT and CG patients were subjected to identical measurements (pre/post) of the parameters in the State Trait Anxiety Inventory Y1 (STAI-Y1), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-P) and satisfaction (VAS-S) and heart rate variability. Results: A statistically significant difference in the anxiety scores after PRB between MT and CG patients (STAI-Y1 35.4 ± 6.2 versus 42.9 ± 9.0) was observed. MT also had strong and significant effects on VAS-P compared with CG (5.0 ± 1.4 versus 6.3 ± 1.3, respectively; P < .001) and VAS-S (7.8 ± 1.0 versus 6.0 ± 0.9, respectively; P < .001). Decreased activity of the sympathetic nervous system and increased activity of the parasympathetic nervous system was observed after PRB in the MT group. Conclusion: Our study supports the use of MT to mitigate the psychological anxiety, pain and sympathetic activation associated with PRB.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Biological therapy is a cornerstone of managing moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). New biologics have been evolving over the past 20 years and selection of an agent remains challenging.Drug persistence measures the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of a therapy, which can be a surrogate marker of drug tolerance and efficacy. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare drug persistence of new generation biologics for the treatment of UC and CD (vedolizumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab, tofacitinib, natalizumab and golimumab) with conventional anti-tumor necroisis factor alphas (anti-TNF alphas) (adalimumab and infliximab) in adult patients with IBD. Results of the study may provide guidance on the preferred first and subsequent lines of biological treatments in patients with IBD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Search via electronic databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and clinical trial databases will be conducted on 10 March 2023 with eligible studies included from inception of 2017 to 2023. The primary outcomes are 1-year persistence of individual biologics with comparison of new biologics versus conventional anti-TNF alphas. A meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager V.5 and outcome will be presented as relative risk. Heterogeneity will be assessed with forest plot, χ2 and I2, followed with sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to assess the quality of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as no private information of participants will be used. Results of the present study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023392236.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos , Colitis Ulcerosa , Enfermedad de Crohn , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Humanos , Adulto , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral/uso terapéutico , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto , Metaanálisis como Asunto , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , Factores Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedad de Crohn/tratamiento farmacológico , Colitis Ulcerosa/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Background: Innovative GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)-based treatment strategies-such as tirzepatide, GLP-1RA plus basal insulin fixed-ratio combinations [FRC], GLP-1RA plus sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT-2i] combinations, and high-dose GLP-1RA-have been listed among the most efficacious options for type 2 diabetes management. However, differences in their glucometabolic effects have not been assessed in dedicated head-to-head trials. In the absence of such trials, we aimed to provide a useful comparison among these treatment strategies to guide clinical practice. Methods: In this network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science (from database inception to June 24, 2023) for randomised controlled studies, published in English, that enrolled individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with tirzepatide, iGlarLixi, iDegLira, GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2i combination, or high-dose GLP-1RA (dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, semaglutide 2 mg) compared with placebo or active comparators. Eligible studies reported change from baseline in HbA1c as an outcome, which was the primary outcome of this analysis. Secondary outcomes were changes in fasting and post-prandial glucose, bodyweight, LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure and risk of hypoglycaemia. We assessed risk of bias through the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (RoB2 tool), publication bias through visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger's test, and heterogeneity by comparing the magnitude of the common between-study variance (τ2) for each outcome with empirical distributions of heterogeneity variances. This network meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022329878). Findings: 40 trials were included. Tirzepatide 15 mg ranked first in terms of HbA1c reduction compared to other GLP-1RA-based strategies, even those including insulin (vs. iDegLira MD -0.40%, 95% CI [-0.66; -0.14], low certainty; vs. iGlarLixi MD -0.48%, 95% CI [-0.75; -0.21], low certainty), without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia (vs. iDegLira OR 0.35, 95% CI [0.16; 0.79], high certainty; vs. iGlarLixi OR 0.31, 95% CI [0.20; 0.48], high certainty). Tirzepatide 15 mg was also the most efficacious on weight lowering, even compared to high-dose GLP-1RA (eg, semaglutide 2 mg MD -6.56 kg, 95% CI [-7.38; -5.73], low certainty) and GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2i combination (MD -4.61 kg, 95% CI [-5.29; -3.93], low certainty). Risk of bias and publication bias were generally low throughout studies, while high levels of heterogeneity were detected for most outcomes. Interpretation: Aiming to support clinicians in tailoring treatment to patients' needs, we suggest that a hierarchy among treatment strategies be devised considering the best options for type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide, followed by GLP-1RA plus basal insulin FRC and GLP-1RA plus SGLT-2i combination, was associated with greater benefit on HbA1c than high-dose GLP-1RA. Funding: Fondazione per la Ricerca Biomedica "Saverio e Isabella Cianciola" and Next Generation EU, in the context of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, Investment PE8-Project Age-It: Ageing Well in an Ageing Society.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Blood glucose control is central to the management of diabetes, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control. We aimed to describe the perspectives of people with diabetes using CGM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of qualitative studies. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies involving 1845 participants were included. Six themes were identified: gaining control and convenience (reducing pain and time, safeguarding against complications, achieving stricter glucose levels, and sharing responsibility with family); motivating self-management (fostering ownership, and increasing awareness of glycemic control); providing reassurance and freedom (attaining peace of mind, and restoring social participation); developing confidence (encouraged by the endorsement of others, gaining operational skills, customizing settings for ease of use, and trust in the device); burdened with device complexities (bewildered by unfamiliar technology, reluctant to rely on algorithms, overwhelmed by data, frustrated with malfunctioning and inaccuracy, distressed by alerts, and bulkiness of machines interfering with lifestyle); and excluded by barriers to access (constrained by cost, lack of suppliers). CONCLUSIONS: CGM can improve self-management and confidence in patients managing diabetes. However, the technical issues, uncertainty in readings, and cost may limit the uptake. Education and training from the health professionals may help to reduce the practical and psychological burden for better patient outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1 , Hiperinsulinismo , Insulinas , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1/tratamiento farmacológico , Glucemia , Automonitorización de la Glucosa Sanguínea , Monitoreo Continuo de Glucosa , Calidad de Vida , Sistemas de Infusión de Insulina , Evaluación del Resultado de la Atención al Paciente , Insulina/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom in people receiving dialysis that is associated with an increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease and depression. Fatigue can also impair quality of life (QoL) and the ability to participate in daily activities. Fatigue has been established by patients, caregivers and health professionals as a core outcome for haemodialysis (HD). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue in people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, including HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD), including any setting and frequency of the dialysis treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 18 October 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions affecting levels of fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis were included. Studies were eligible if fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes were reported as a primary or secondary outcome. Any mode, frequency, prescription, and duration of therapy were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardised MD (SMD) if different scales were used. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four studies involving 8191 randomised participants were eligible. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were compared either to placebo or control, or to another pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. In the majority of domains, risks of bias in the included studies were unclear or high. In low certainty evidence, when compared to control, exercise may improve fatigue (4 studies, 217 participants (Iowa Fatigue Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS), or Haemodialysis-Related Fatigue scale score): SMD -1.18, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.31; I2 = 87%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or standard care, aromatherapy may improve fatigue (7 studies, 542 participants (Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Rhoten Fatigue Scale (RFS), PFS or Brief Fatigue Inventory score): SMD -1.23, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.50; I2 = 93%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to no intervention, massage may improve fatigue (7 studies, 657 participants (FSS, RFS, PFS or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.47, -0.65; I2 = 81%) and increase energy (2 studies, 152 participants (VAS score): MD 4.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 8.06, I2 = 59%) in HD. In low certainty evidence, when compared to placebo or control, acupressure may reduce fatigue (6 studies, 459 participants (PFS score, revised PFS, or Fatigue Index): SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.25; I2 = 75%) in HD. A wide range of heterogenous interventions and fatigue-related outcomes were reported for exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure, preventing our capability to pool and analyse the data. Due to the paucity of studies, the effects of pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes, including non-physiological neutral amino acid, relaxation with or without music therapy, meditation, exercise with nandrolone, nutritional supplementation, cognitive-behavioural therapy, ESAs, frequent HD sections, home blood pressure monitoring, blood flow rate reduction, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, beta-blockers, anabolic steroids, glucose-enriched dialysate, or light therapy, were very uncertain. The effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments on death, cardiovascular diseases, vascular access, QoL, depression, anxiety, hypertension or diabetes were sparse. No studies assessed tiredness, exhaustion or asthenia. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, aromatherapy, massage and acupressure may improve fatigue compared to placebo, standard care or no intervention. Pharmacological and other non-pharmacological interventions had uncertain effects on fatigue or fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis. Future adequately powered, high-quality studies are likely to change the estimated effects of interventions for fatigue and fatigue-related outcomes in people receiving dialysis.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Insuficiencia Renal , Humanos , Fatiga/etiología , Fatiga/terapia , Riñón , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Diálisis RenalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in access to kidney transplantation are apparent, with women being up to 20% less likely to receive kidney transplant compared with men across different settings and socioeconomic backgrounds. We aimed to describe nephrologists' perspectives on gender disparities in access to kidney transplantation. METHODS: Fifty-one nephrologists (55% women) from 22 countries participated in semistructured interviews from October 2019 to April 2020. We analyzed the transcripts thematically. RESULTS: We identified three themes: caregiving as a core role (coordinators of care for partners, fulfilling family duties over own health, maternal protectiveness, and inherent willingness and generosity), stereotyping and stigma (authority held by men in decision making, protecting the breadwinner, preserving body image and appearance, and safeguard fertility), social disadvantage and vulnerability (limited information and awareness, coping alone and lack of support, disempowered by language barriers, lack of financial resources, and without access to transport). CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities in access to kidney transplantation are perceived by nephrologists to be exacerbated by gender norms and values, stigma and prejudice, and educational and financial disadvantages that are largely encountered by women compared with men across different socioeconomic settings.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Riñón , Nefrólogos , Masculino , Humanos , FemeninoRESUMEN
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 disproportionately affects people with comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease (CKD). We describe the impact of COVID-19 on people with CKD and their caregivers. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of qualitative studies. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Primary studies that reported the experiences and perspectives of adults with CKD and/or caregivers were eligible. SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL searched from database inception to October 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened the search results. Full texts of potentially relevant studies were assessed for eligibility. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with another author. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: A thematic synthesis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies involving 1,962 participants were included. Four themes were identified: exacerbating vulnerability and distress (looming threat of COVID-19 infection, intensifying isolation, aggravating pressure on families); uncertainty in accessing health care (overwhelmed by disruption of care, confused by lack of reliable information, challenged by adapting to telehealth, skeptical about vaccine efficacy and safety); coping with self-management (waning fitness due to decreasing physical activity, diminishing ability to manage diet, difficulty managing fluid restrictions, minimized burden with telehealth, motivating confidence and autonomy); and strengthening sense of safety and support (protection from lockdown restrictions, increasing trust in care, strengthened family connection). LIMITATIONS: Non-English studies were excluded, and inability to delineate themes based on stage of kidney and treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty in accessing health care during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated vulnerability, emotional distress, and burden, and led to reduced capacity to self-manage among patients with CKD and their caregivers. Optimizing telehealth and access to educational and psychosocial support may improve self-management and the quality and effectiveness of care during a pandemic, mitigating potentially catastrophic consequences for people with CKD. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) faced barriers and challenges to accessing care and were at an increased risk of worsened health outcomes. To understand the perspectives about the impact of COVID-19 among patients with CKD and their caregivers, we conducted a systematic review of 34 studies involving 1,962 participants. Our findings demonstrated that uncertainty in accessing care during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the vulnerability, distress, and burden of patients and impaired their abilities for self-management. Optimizing the use of telehealth and providing education and psychosocial services may mitigate the potential consequences for people with CKD during a pandemic.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Adulto , Humanos , Pandemias , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Investigación Cualitativa , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/epidemiología , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/terapia , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/psicologíaRESUMEN
AIM: To compare the benefits and harms of drugs approved for weight management in adults with obesity or overweight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of drugs approved for treating obesity and overweight. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL through 26 February 2023. Random-effects network meta-analysis was applied. RESULTS: A total of 168 trials (97 938 patients) were included. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death (69 trials, 59 037 participants). Naltrexone/bupropion was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality than placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.99]; low certainty evidence). All drugs were associated with greater weight loss at 12 months than placebo (33 trials, 37 616 participants), mainly semaglutide (mean difference [MD], -9.02 kg [95% CI: -10.42, -7.63]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -8.10 kg [95% CI: -10.14, -6.05]; high certainty); and with greater waist circumference reduction at 12 months than placebo (24 trials, 35 733 participants), mainly semaglutide (MD, -7.84 cm [95% CI: -9.34, -6.34]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -6.20 cm [95% CI: -7.46, -4.94]; high certainty). Semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with lower or no difference in the odds of treatment withdrawal compared with all other drugs (87 trials, 70 860 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with obesity or overweight, semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with greater body weight loss and waist circumference reduction at 12 months than all other drugs, and lower or no significant difference in risks of withdrawal. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death.
Asunto(s)
Obesidad , Sobrepeso , Adulto , Humanos , Sobrepeso/complicaciones , Sobrepeso/tratamiento farmacológico , Topiramato/uso terapéutico , Metaanálisis en Red , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Obesidad/complicaciones , Obesidad/tratamiento farmacológico , FenterminaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Metabolic alkalosis may lead to respiratory inhibition and increased need for ventilatory support or prolongation of weaning from ventilation for patients with chronic respiratory disease. Acetazolamide can reduce alkalaemia and may reduce respiratory depression. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to March 2022 for randomised controlled trials comparing acetazolamide to placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity hypoventilation syndrome or obstructive sleep apnoea, hospitalised with acute respiratory deterioration complicated by metabolic alkalosis. The primary outcome was mortality and we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk of Bias 2) tool, heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 value and χ2 test for heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) methodology. RESULTS: Four studies with 504 patients were included. 99% of included patients had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. No trials recruited patients with obstructive sleep apnoea. 50% of trials recruited patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Risk of bias was overall low to some risk. There was no statistically significant difference with acetazolamide in mortality (relative risk 0.98 (95% CI 0.28 to 3.46); p=0.95; 490 participants; three studies; GRADE low certainty) or duration of ventilatory support (mean difference -0.8 days (95% CI -7.2 to 5.6); p=0.36; 427 participants; two studies; GRADE: low certainty). CONCLUSION: Acetazolamide may have little impact on respiratory failure with metabolic alkalosis in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. However, clinically significant benefits or harms are unable to be excluded, and larger trials are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021278757.
Asunto(s)
Alcalosis , Síndrome de Hipoventilación por Obesidad , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Humanos , Acetazolamida/uso terapéutico , Síndrome de Hipoventilación por Obesidad/complicaciones , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/complicaciones , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/tratamiento farmacológico , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is a key strategy in managing hypertension but may be challenging and burdensome for patients. The aim of the study was to describe the perspectives and experiences of self-monitoring of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched from database inception to March 2022. We used thematic synthesis to analyze the data. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies involving 872 patients aged 18-95 years were included. Four themes were identified: enabling autonomy and empowerment of own health (allowing access to comprehensive and accurate data, bolstering motivation for lifestyle changes, encouraging diligence in medication taking, gaining interest in self-management, and increasing awareness of health status); providing reassurance and convenience (instilling a sense of security, readiness for troubleshooting, and reducing the frequency of clinical appointments); triggering confusion and stress (anxiety and panic over "bad" numbers, constant reminder of illness identity, disregarded by clinicians, lack of confidence in interpreting and responding to results, redundancy of continuous monitoring, and uncertainties around targets and frequency of measures, concerns of unreliability); financial and operational burden of device (vulnerability preventing use, or unsustainable cost). CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate knowledge about the benefits of lowering blood pressure, home blood pressure monitoring, blood pressure goals, and interpretation of blood pressure values, limited access to home blood pressure monitoring devices, and psychological burden with home blood pressure monitoring limit home blood pressure monitoring.
Asunto(s)
Hipertensión , Hipotensión , Humanos , Presión Sanguínea , Hipertensión/diagnóstico , Hipertensión/terapia , Investigación Cualitativa , MotivaciónRESUMEN
Dietary phosphorus restrictions are usually recommended for people on haemodialysis, although its impact on patient-relevant outcomes is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association between total phosphorus intake and its sources with mortality in haemodialysis. Phosphorus intake was ascertained within the DIET-HD study in 8110 adults on haemodialysis. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between the total and source-specific phosphorus (plant-, animal-, or processed and other sources) with mortality. During a median 3.8 years of follow-up, there were 2953 deaths, 1160 cardiovascular-related. The median phosphorus intake was 1388 mg/day. Every standard deviation (SD) (896 mg/day) increase in total phosphorus was associated with higher all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.06-1.26] and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.36). Every SD (17%) increase in the proportion of phosphorus from plant sources was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Every SD (9%) increase in the proportion of phosphorus from the processed and other sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10). A higher total phosphorus intake was associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular death. This association is driven largely by the phosphorus intake from processed food. Plant based phosphorus was associated with lower all-cause mortality.