Australian and New Zealand Living Guideline cholesterol-lowering therapy for people with chronic kidney disease (CARI Guidelines): Reducing the evidence-practice gap.

AIM: People with chronic kidney disease experience high rates of cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol-lowering therapy is a mainstay in the management but there is uncertainty in the treatment effects on patient-important outcomes, such as fatigue and rhabdomyolysis. Here, we summarise the updated CARI Australian and New Zealand Living Guidelines on cholesterol-lowering therapy in chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We updated a Cochrane review and monitored newly published studies weekly to inform guideline development according to international standards. The Working Group included expertise from nephrology, cardiology, Indigenous Health, guideline development and people with lived experience of chronic kidney disease. RESULTS: The guideline recommends people with chronic kidney disease (eGFR ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m2) and an absolute cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher should receive statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and death (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). The guidelines also recommends a lower absolute cardiovascular risk threshold (≥5%) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Maori with chronic kidney disease to receive statin therapy (with or without ezetimibe) (strong recommendation, low certainty evidence). The evidence was actively surveyed from 2020-2023 and updated as required. No changes to guideline recommendations were made, with no new data on the balance and benefits of harms. CONCLUSIONS: The development of living guidelines was feasible and provided the opportunity to update recommendations to improve clinical decision-making in real-time. Living guidelines provide the opportunity to transform chronic kidney disease guidelines.

Consumer involvement in the development and dissemination of chronic kidney disease guidelines: a summary of a meaningful and sustainable approach developed by Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The involvement of consumers (people with lived experience of disease) in guidelines is widely advocated to improve their relevance and uptake. However, the approaches to consumer involvement in guidelines vary and are not well documented. We describe the consumer involvement framework of Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment Guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a descriptive document analysis to collate all relevant policies, documents, e-mails, and presentations on consumer involvement in our organizations. We performed a narrative synthesis of collated data to summarize our evolving consumer involvement approach in guidelines. RESULTS: We involve consumers at all levels of Caring for Australians and New ZealandeRs with kidney Impairment guideline development and dissemination according to their capacity, from conducting consumer workshops to inform the scope of guidelines, to including consumers as members of the guideline Working Groups and overseeing operations and governance as members of the Steering Committee and staff. Our approach has resulted in tangible outcomes including high-priority topics on patient education, psychosocial care, and clinical care pathways, and focusing the literature reviews to assess patient-important outcomes. The ongoing partnership with consumers led to the generation of consumer version guidelines to improve guideline dissemination and translation to support shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: Meaningful consumer involvement can be achieved through a comprehensive approach across the entire lifecycle of guidelines. However, it must be individualized by ensuring that the involvement of consumers is timely and flexible. Future work is needed to assess the impact of consumer involvement in guideline development.

Experiences of Indigenous Patients Receiving Dialysis: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Indigenous People suffer a high burden of kidney disease. Those receiving maintenance dialysis have worse outcomes compared with similarly treated non-Indigenous patients. We characterized the experiences of Indigenous patients receiving dialysis in British-colonized countries to gain insights into which aspects of kidney care may benefit from improvement. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of published qualitative interview studies. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Indigenous Peoples aged 18 years and over, receiving hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis in British-colonized countries. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Search terms for Indigenous Peoples, dialysis, and qualitative research were entered into Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and searched from inception to January 5, 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Characteristics of each study were extracted into Microsoft Excel for quality assessment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The analysis included 28 studies involving 471 participants from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. We identified four themes: centrality of family and culture (continuing dialysis for family, gaining autonomy through shared involvement, balancing primary responsibility to care for family); marginalization due to structural and social inequities (falling through gaps in primary care intensifying shock, discriminated against and judged by specialists, alienated and fearful of hospitals, overwhelmed by travel, financial and regimental burdens); vulnerability in accessing health care (need for culturally responsive care, lack of language interpreters, without agency in decision-making, comorbidities compounding complexity of self-management); and distress from separation from community (disenfranchisement and sorrow when away for dialysis, inability to perpetuate cultural continuity, seeking a kidney transplant). LIMITATIONS: We only included articles published in English. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous patients receiving dialysis experience inequities in health care that compound existing accessibility issues caused by colonization. Improving the accessibility and cultural responsiveness of dialysis and kidney transplant services in collaboration with Indigenous stakeholders holds promise to enhance the experience of Indigenous patients receiving dialysis. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Worldwide Indigenous populations suffer a high incidence of chronic disease leading to lower life expectancy, particularly for kidney disease, an insidious condition requiring long-term dialysis treatment. By listening to Indigenous dialysis patients' stories, we hoped to understand how to improve their experience. We gathered 28 qualitative research studies from four countries reporting Indigenous adults' experiences of dialysis. They described lacking awareness of kidney disease, poor access to health services, systemic racism, inadequate cultural safety, and being dislocated from family, community, and culture. These findings indicate that respectful collaboration with Indigenous Peoples to craft and implement policy changes holds promise to improve prevention, integrate culturally responsive health care practices, and provide better access to local dialysis services and opportunities for kidney transplants.

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.

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.