The CONVINCE randomized trial found positive effects on quality of life for patients with chronic kidney disease treated with hemodiafiltration.

In the CONVINCE trial, the primary analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for patients receiving high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) as compared with high-flux hemodialysis (HD). A secondary objective was to evaluate effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); assessed in eight domains (physical function, cognitive function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain interference, social participation) applying instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) before randomization and every three months thereafter. In total 1360 adults with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, eligible to receive high-flux HDF (23 liters or more), were randomized (1:1); 84% response rate to all questionnaires. Both groups reported a continuous deterioration in all HRQoL domains. Overall, raw score changes from baseline were more favorable in the HDF group, resulting in a significant omnibus test after a median observation period of 30 months. Most relevant single raw score differences were reported for cognitive function. Patients receiving HDF reported a decline of -0.95 units (95% confidence interval - 2.23 to +0.34) whereas HD treated patients declined by -3.90 units (-5.28 to - 2.52). A joint model, adjusted for mortality differences, utilizing all quarterly assessments, identified a significantly slower HRQoL decline in physical function, cognitive function, pain interference, and social participation for the HDF group. Their physical health summary score declined -0.46 units/year slower compared to the HD group. Thus, the CONVINCE trial showed a beneficial effect of high-dose hemodiafiltration for survival as well as a moderate positive effect on patients' quality of life, most pronounced with respect to their cognitive function.

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.

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.

Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.

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.

Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis to prevent the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all-cause death in solid organ transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the information specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 February 2024 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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications or different regimens of the same antiviral medications for CMV prophylaxis in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre-emptive therapy for CMV infection are studied in a separate review and were excluded from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, 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) 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: This 2024 update found four new studies, bringing the total number of included studies to 41 (5054 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear across most studies, with a low risk of bias for sequence generation (12), allocation concealment (12), blinding (11) and selective outcome reporting (9) in fewer studies. There is high-certainty evidence that prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment is more effective in preventing CMV disease (19 studies: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), all-cause death (17 studies: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92), and CMV infection (17 studies: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77). There is moderate-certainty evidence that prophylaxis probably reduces death from CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduces the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but probably makes little to no difference to fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. No apparent differences in adverse events with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment were found. There is high certainty evidence that ganciclovir, when compared with aciclovir, is more effective in preventing CMV disease (7 studies: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60). There may be little to no difference in any outcome between valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir compared with oral ganciclovir (low certainty evidence). The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir or ganciclovir were probably no different to valaciclovir in three studies (moderate certainty evidence). There is moderate certainty evidence that extended duration prophylaxis probably reduces the risk of CMV disease compared with three months of therapy (2 studies: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35), with probably little to no difference in rates of adverse events. Low certainty evidence suggests that 450 mg/day valganciclovir compared with 900 mg/day valganciclovir results in little to no difference in all-cause death, CMV infection, acute rejection, and graft loss (no information on adverse events). Maribavir may increase CMV infection compared with ganciclovir (1 study: RR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.65; moderate certainty evidence); however, little to no difference between the two treatments were found for CMV disease, all-cause death, acute rejection, and adverse events at six months (low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV-associated death, compared with placebo or no treatment, in solid organ transplant recipients. These data support the continued routine use of antiviral prophylaxis in CMV-positive recipients and CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive organ transplants.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease.

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.

Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure.

BACKGROUND: Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 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. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. 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. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observational study design, studies were at risk of selection bias and residual confounding. Many study outcomes were reported in ways that did not allow direct comparison or meta-analysis. It is uncertain whether HHD, compared to ICHD, may be associated with a decrease in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 2 NRSIs, 30,900 participants; very low certainty evidence) or all-cause death (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; 9 NRSIs, 58,984 patients; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether HHD may be associated with a decrease in hospitalisation rate (MD -0.50 admissions per patient-year, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.02; 2 NRSIs, 834 participants; very low certainty evidence), compared with ICHD. Compared with ICHD, it is uncertain whether HHD may be associated with receipt of kidney transplantation (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 6 NRSIs, 10,910 participants; very low certainty evidence) and a shorter recovery time post-dialysis (MD -2.0 hours, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.28; 2 NRSIs, 348 participants; very low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain if HHD may be associated with decreased systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -11.71 mm Hg, 95% CI -21.11 to -2.46; 4 NRSIs, 491 participants; very low certainty evidence) and decreased left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD -17.74 g/m2, 95% CI -29.60 to -5.89; 2 NRSIs, 130 participants; low certainty evidence). There was insufficient data to evaluate the relative association of HHD and ICHD with fatigue or vascular access outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported using 18 different measures across 11 studies (QoL: 6 measures; mental health: 3 measures; symptoms: 1 measure; impact and view of health: 6 measures; functional ability: 2 measures). Few studies reported the same measures, which limited the ability to perform meta-analysis or compare outcomes. It is uncertain whether HHD is more cost-effective than ICHD, both in the first (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.13 to -0.37; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence) and second year of dialysis (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -2.72 to -0.21; 4 NRSIs, 13,809 participants; very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low to very low certainty evidence, HHD, compared with ICHD, has uncertain associations or may be associated with decreased cardiovascular and all-cause death, hospitalisation rate, slower post-dialysis recovery time, and decreased SBP and LVMI. HHD has uncertain cost-effectiveness compared with ICHD in the first and second years of treatment. The majority of studies included in this review were observational and subject to potential selection bias and confounding, especially as patients treated with HHD tended to be younger with fewer comorbidities. Variation from study to study in the choice of outcomes and the way in which they were reported limited the ability to perform meta-analyses. Future research should align outcome measures and metrics with other research in the field in order to allow comparison between studies, establish outcome effects with greater certainty, and avoid research waste.

Actioning the findings of hard endpoint clinical trials as they emerge in the realm of chronic kidney disease care: a review and a call to action.

Fewer than half of patients treated with hemodialysis survive 5 years. Multiple therapeutics are used to address the complications of advanced chronic kidney disease but most have not been found to improve clinical outcomes. Clinical trials of treatment innovations for chronic kidney diseases and dialysis care have been suboptimal in number and quality. Recent trials are changing this trend. Practice and policy change when new evidence emerges remains frequently impeded by resource and organizational constraints and accordingly, clinical practice guidelines are updated years or decades after definitive evidence is produced. Ultimately, practice change in health systems is slow, leading to impaired uptake of effective medical interventions and lower value healthcare, although innovations in rapid guideline production are emerging. What can be done to ensure that conclusive evidence is taken up in practice, policy and healthcare funding? We use the example of the recently published hard endpoint study "Comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD" (CONVINCE) (hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis), to explain how a new trial can impact on medical knowledge and change in practices. We (i) assess how the trial can be placed in the context of the totality of the evidence, (ii) define whether or not further trials of convective dialysis therapies are still needed and (iii) examine whether the evidence for convective therapies is now ready to inform practice, policy and funding change. When looking at CONVINCE in the context of the totality of evidence, we show that it addresses dialysis quality improvement priorities and is consistent with other trials evaluating convective dialysis therapies, and that the evidence for convective dialysis therapies is now definitive. Once updated evidence for cost-effectiveness in specific healthcare settings and patient-reported outcomes become available, we should therefore determine whether or not clinical practice guidelines should recommend uptake of convective dialysis therapies routinely, and move on to evaluating other treatments.

Oral manifestations after vaccinations: A systematic review of observational studies.

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.

Non-immunosuppressive treatment for IgA nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerular disease, with approximately 20% to 40% of patients progressing to kidney failure within 25 years. Non-immunosuppressive treatment has become a mainstay in the management of IgAN by improving blood pressure (BP) management, decreasing proteinuria, and avoiding the risks of long-term immunosuppressive management. Due to the slowly progressive nature of the disease, clinical trials are often underpowered, and conflicting information about management with non-immunosuppressive treatment is common. This is an update of a Cochrane review, first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-immunosuppressive treatment for treating IgAN in adults and children. We aimed to examine all non-immunosuppressive therapies (e.g. anticoagulants, antihypertensives, dietary restriction and supplementation, tonsillectomy, and herbal medicines) in the management of IgAN. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to December 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, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of non-immunosuppressive agents in adults and children with biopsy-proven IgAN were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Results were expressed as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 80 studies (4856 participants), of which 24 new studies (2018 participants) were included in this review update. The risk of bias within the included studies was mostly high or unclear for many of the assessed methodological domains, with poor reporting of important key clinical trial methods in most studies. Antihypertensive therapies were the most examined non-immunosuppressive therapy (37 studies, 1799 participants). Compared to placebo or no treatment, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition probably decreases proteinuria (3 studies, 199 participants: MD - 0.71 g/24 h, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.39; moderate certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference to kidney failure or doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), or complete remission of proteinuria (low certainty evidence). Death, remission of haematuria, relapse of proteinuria or > 50% increase in SCr were not reported. Compared to symptomatic treatment, RAS inhibition (3 studies, 168 participants) probably decreases proteinuria (MD -1.16 g/24 h, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.81) and SCr (MD -9.37 µmol/L, 95% CI -71.95 to -6.80) and probably increases creatinine clearance (2 studies, 127 participants: MD 23.26 mL/min, 95% CI 10.40 to 36.12) (all moderate certainty evidence); however, the risk of kidney failure is uncertain (1 study, 34 participants: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.88; very low certainty evidence). Death, remission of proteinuria or haematuria, or relapse of proteinuria were not reported. The risk of adverse events may be no different with RAS inhibition compared to either placebo or symptomatic treatment (low certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, tonsillectomy in people with IgAN in addition to standard care may increase remission of proteinuria compared to standard care alone (2 studies, 143 participants: RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47) and remission of microscopic haematuria (2 studies, 143 participants: RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.53) and may decrease relapse of proteinuria (1 study, 73 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.85) and relapse of haematuria (1 study, 72 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98). Death, kidney failure and a > 50% increase in SCr were not reported. These trials have only been conducted in Japanese people with IgAN, and the findings' generalisability is unclear. Anticoagulant therapy, fish oil, and traditional Chinese medicines exhibited small benefits to kidney function in patients with IgAN when compared to placebo or no treatment. However, compared to standard care, the kidney function benefits are no longer evident. Antimalarial therapy compared to placebo in one study reported an increase in a > 50% reduction of proteinuria (53 participants: RR 3.13 g/24 h, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.36; low certainty evidence). Although, there was uncertainty regarding adverse events from this study due to very few events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available RCTs focused on a diverse range of interventions. They were few, small, and of insufficient duration to determine potential long-term benefits on important kidney and cardiovascular outcomes and harms of treatment. Antihypertensive agents appear to be the most beneficial non-immunosuppressive intervention for IgAN. The antihypertensives examined were predominantly angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. The benefits of RAS inhibition appear to outweigh the harms in patients with IgAN. The certainty of the evidence of RCTs demonstrating a benefit of tonsillectomy to patients with Japanese patients with IgAN was low. In addition, these findings are inconsistent across observational studies in people with IgAN of other ethnicities; hence, tonsillectomy is not widely recommended, given the potential harm of therapy. The RCT evidence is insufficiently robust to demonstrate efficacy for the other non-immunosuppressive treatments evaluated here.

Blood pressure lowering for kidney transplant recipients: systematic review with network meta-analysis.

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.

Anticoagulation for people receiving long-term haemodialysis.

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.

Understanding patient needs and predicting outcomes in IgA nephropathy using data analytics and artificial intelligence: a narrative review.

This narrative review explores two case scenarios related to immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) and the application of predictive monitoring, big data analysis and artificial intelligence (AI) in improving treatment outcomes. The first scenario discusses how online service providers accurately understand consumer preferences and needs through the use of AI-powered big data analysis. The author, a clinical nephrologist, contemplates the potential application of similar methodologies, including AI, in his medical practice to better understand and meet patient needs. The second scenario presents a case study of a 20-year-old man with IgAN. The patient exhibited recurring symptoms, including gross haematuria and tonsillitis, over a 2-year period. Through histological examination and treatment with renin-angiotensin system blockade and corticosteroids, the patient experienced significant improvement in kidney function and reduced proteinuria over 15 years of follow-up. The case highlights the importance of individualized treatment strategies and the use of predictive tools, such as AI-based predictive models, in assessing treatment response and predicting long-term outcomes in IgAN patients. The article further discusses the collection and analysis of real-world big data, including electronic health records, for studying disease natural history, predicting treatment responses and identifying prognostic biomarkers. Challenges in integrating data from various sources and issues such as missing data and data processing limitations are also addressed. Mathematical models, including logistic regression and Cox regression analysis, are discussed for predicting clinical outcomes and analysing changes in variables over time. Additionally, the application of machine learning algorithms, including AI techniques, in analysing big data and predicting outcomes in IgAN is explored. In conclusion, the article highlights the potential benefits of leveraging AI-powered big data analysis, predictive monitoring and machine learning algorithms to enhance patient care and improve treatment outcomes in IgAN.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Glucometabolic outcomes of GLP-1 receptor agonist-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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.

Patient experiences of continuous glucose monitoring and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy for diabetes: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

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.

Interventions for fatigue in people with kidney failure requiring dialysis.

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.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for adults with early (stage 1 to 3) non-diabetic chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending kidney replacement therapy and for intervention to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on kidney outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of kidney impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain. This is an update of a review that was last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus (DM). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 6 July 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) reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have DM were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently, using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test and the I² test. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) 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: Six studies randomising 9379 participants with CKD stages 1 to 3 (without DM) met our inclusion criteria. Participants were adults with hypertension; 79% were male from China, Europe, Japan, and the USA. Treatment periods ranged from 12 weeks to three years. Overall, studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains, and the quality of the evidence was poor, with GRADE rated as low or very low certainty. In low certainty evidence, ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.37; I² = 76%), total cardiovascular events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05; I² = 0%), cardiovascular-related death (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 11.66; I² = 54%), stroke (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03; I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; I² = 0%), and adverse events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41; I² = 0%). It is uncertain whether ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo reduces congestive heart failure (1 study, 8290 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) or transient ischaemic attack (1 study, 583 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; I² = 0%) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ARB (losartan 50 mg) compared to placebo (1 study, 226 participants) reduces: death (any-cause) (no events), adverse events (RR 19.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 328.30), eGFR rate of decline (MD 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 3.03 to 6.97), presence of proteinuria (MD -0.65 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.52), systolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.89 to 2.29), or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.10 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.29 to 1.09) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ACEi (enalapril 20 mg, perindopril 2 mg or trandolapril 1 mg) compared to ARB (olmesartan 20 mg, losartan 25 mg or candesartan 4 mg) (1 study, 26 participants) reduces: proteinuria (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.20), systolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.08 to 0.08) or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.31 to 1.31) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have DM. The available evidence is overall of very low certainty and high risk of bias. We have identified an area of large uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those diagnosed as having CKD.

Perspectives of Nephrologists on Gender Disparities in Access to Kidney Transplantation.

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.

Effect of Hemodiafiltration or Hemodialysis on Mortality in Kidney Failure.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that patients with kidney failure may benefit from high-dose hemodiafiltration as compared with standard hemodialysis. However, given the limitations of the various published studies, additional data are needed. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with kidney failure who had received high-flux hemodialysis for at least 3 months. All the patients were deemed to be candidates for a convection volume of at least 23 liters per session (as required for high-dose hemodiafiltration) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments. The patients were assigned to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration or continuation of conventional high-flux hemodialysis. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Key secondary outcomes were cause-specific death, a composite of fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events, kidney transplantation, and recurrent all-cause or infection-related hospitalizations. RESULTS: A total of 1360 patients underwent randomization: 683 to receive high-dose hemodiafiltration and 677 to receive high-flux hemodialysis. The median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 27 to 38). The mean convection volume during the trial in the hemodiafiltration group was 25.3 liters per session. Death from any cause occurred in 118 patients (17.3%) in the hemodiafiltration group and in 148 patients (21.9%) in the hemodialysis group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with kidney failure resulting in kidney-replacement therapy, the use of high-dose hemodiafiltration resulted in a lower risk of death from any cause than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. (Funded by the European Commission Research and Innovation; CONVINCE Dutch Trial Register number, NTR7138.).

Vitamin D Therapy in Adults With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Vitamin D is widely used to manage chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). We evaluated the effects of vitamin D therapy on mortality, cardiovascular, bone, and kidney outcomes in adults with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with highly sensitive searching of MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, through February 25, 2023. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Adults with stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD, including kidney failure treated with dialysis. Recipients of a kidney transplant were excluded. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: RCTs with≥3 months of follow-up evaluating a vitamin D compound. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by three investigators. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Treatment estimates were summarized using random effects meta-analysis. Primary review endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and fracture. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization, bone mineral density, parathyroidectomy, progression to kidney failure, proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hypercalcemia, hyperphosphatemia, biochemical markers of CKD-MBD, and various intermediate outcome measures of cardiovascular disease. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool. Evidence certainty was adjudicated using GRADE. RESULTS: Overall, 128 studies involving 11,270 participants were included. Compared with placebo, vitamin D therapy probably had no effect on all-cause death (relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84-1.24); and uncertain effects on fracture (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.37-1.23) and cardiovascular death (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.31-1.71). Compared with placebo, vitamin D therapy lowered serum parathyroid hormone and alkaline phosphatase, but increased serum calcium. LIMITATIONS: Data were limited by trials with short-term follow-up periods, small sample size, and the suboptimal quality. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D therapy did not reduce the risk of all-cause death in people with CKD. Effects on fracture and cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at PROSPERO with study number CRD42017057691. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with increased risk of death, cardiovascular disease, and fractures. This excess risk is thought to be related to changes in bone and mineral metabolism, leading to the development of CKD-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) which is characterized by vascular calcification and reduced bone quality. Vitamin D is commonly used in the treatment of this condition. We reviewed randomized controlled trials examining the effect of vitamin D therapy in CKD. We found that vitamin D therapy affects serum biomarkers, including an increase in serum calcium. However, it probably has no effect on risk of all-cause death in CKD, and the effects on other clinical bone, cardiovascular, and kidney outcomes are uncertain.