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.

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.

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.

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.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for anaemia in adults with chronic kidney disease: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their use has been associated with cardiovascular events. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: In this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 April 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, a biosimilar epoetin or a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI)) and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed certainty in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes (preventing blood transfusions and death (any cause)) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-two new studies (9237 participants) were included in this update, so the review now includes 117 studies with 25,237 participants. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. Overall, results remain similar in this update compared to our previous review in 2014. For preventing blood transfusion, epoetin alfa (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; low certainty evidence) and epoetin beta (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47; low certainty evidence) may be superior to placebo, and darbepoetin alfa was probably superior to placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67; moderate certainty evidence). Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.02; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03; very low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.91; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on preventing blood transfusion compared to placebo. The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on preventing blood transfusions were uncertain, in low to very low certainty evidence. Effects on death (any cause) were uncertain for epoetin alfa (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22; low certainty evidence), epoetin beta (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20; low certainty evidence), methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.23; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. There was probably no difference between darbepoetin alfa and placebo on the odds of death (any cause) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on death (any cause) were uncertain in low to very low certainty evidence. Epoetin beta probably increased the odds of hypertension when compared to placebo (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.00; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, epoetin alfa (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.59; very low certainty evidence), darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14; low certainty evidence) and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.74; low certainty evidence) may increase the odds of hypertension, but a biosimilar epoetin (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.67; low certainty evidence) and biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.66; low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hypertension. The comparative effects of all ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, and breathlessness were uncertain. Network analysis for fatigue was not possible due to sparse data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The comparative effects of different ESAs on blood transfusions, death (any cause and cardiovascular), major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, fatigue and breathlessness were uncertain.

ANTECEDENTES: Los fármacos estimulantes de la eritropoyesis (FEE) se suelen utilizar para tratar la anemia en personas con nefropatía crónica. Sin embargo, su uso se ha asociado a eventos cardiovasculares. Esta es una actualización de una revisión Cochrane publicada por primera vez en 2014. OBJETIVOS: Comparar la eficacia y la seguridad de los FEE (epoetina alfa, epoetina beta, darbepoetina alfa o metoxi­polietilenglicol epoetina beta y FEE biosimilares) entre sí, con placebo, o ningún tratamiento, para el tratamiento de la anemia en adultos con nefropatía crónica. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: En esta actualización, a través del contacto con el documentalista, y con el uso de términos de búsqueda pertinentes para esta revisión, se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro de estudios del Grupo Cochrane de Riñón y trasplante (Cochrane Kidney and Transplant) hasta el 29 de abril de 2022. Los estudios en el registro se identifican mediante búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE y EMBASE, en resúmenes de congresos, en el portal de búsqueda de la Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos (ICTRP) y en ClinicalTrials.gov. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se consideraron para la inclusión los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que incluían una comparación de un FEE (epoetina alfa, epoetina beta, darbepoetina alfa o metoxi­polietilenglicol epoetina beta, una epoetina biosimilar o una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar) con otro FEE, placebo o ningún tratamiento en adultos con NC. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores independientes examinaron los resultados de la búsqueda y extrajeron los datos. La síntesis de los datos se realizó mediante un metanálisis pareado de efectos aleatorios (expresada como odds ratio [OR] y sus intervalos de confianza [IC] del 95%) y un metanálisis en red. Se evaluó la heterogeneidad y la inconsistencia dentro de los metanálisis con técnicas estándares y se planeó crear subgrupos y una metarregresión para explorar las fuentes de heterogeneidad o la inconsistencia. Se evaluó la certeza en las estimaciones del tratamiento para los desenlaces principales (prevención de transfusiones de sangre y muerte [por cualquier causa]) mediante el método Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta actualización se incluyeron 62 nuevos estudios (9237 participantes), por lo que la revisión incluye ahora 117 estudios con 25 237 participantes. La mayoría de los estudios tuvieron riesgo alto o incierto de sesgo en la mayoría de los dominios metodológicos. En general, los resultados siguen siendo similares en esta actualización en comparación con la revisión anterior de 2014. Para prevenir la transfusión de sangre, la epoetina alfa (OR 0,28; IC del 95%: 0,13 a 0,61; evidencia de certeza baja) y la epoetina beta (OR 0,19; IC del 95%: 0,08 a 0,47; evidencia de certeza baja) podrían ser superiores al placebo, y la darbepoetina alfa fue probablemente superior al placebo (OR 0,27; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 0,67; evidencia de certeza moderada). La metoxi­polietilenglicol epoetina beta (OR 0,33; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 1,02; evidencia de certeza muy baja), una epoetina biosimilar (OR 0,34; IC del 95%: 0,11 a 1,03; evidencia de certeza muy baja) y una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar (OR 0,37; IC del 95%: 0,07 a 1,91; evidencia de certeza muy baja) tuvieron efectos inciertos sobre la prevención de la transfusión de sangre en comparación con el placebo. Los efectos comparativos de los FEE comparados con otro FEE sobre la prevención de las transfusiones de sangre fueron inciertos, en evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja. Los efectos sobre la mortalidad (por cualquier causa) fueron inciertos para la epoetina alfa (OR 0,79; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 1,22; evidencia de certeza baja), la epoetina beta (OR 0,69; IC del 95%: 0,40 a 1,20; evidencia de certeza baja), la metoxi­polietilenglicol epoetina beta (OR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 1,71; evidencia de certeza muy baja), una epoetina biosimilar (OR 0,80; IC del 95%: 0,47 a 1,36; evidencia de certeza baja) y una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar (OR 1,63; IC del 95%: 0,51 a 5,23; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en comparación con el placebo. Es probable que no hubiera diferencias entre la darbepoetina alfa y el placebo en las probabilidades de muerte (por cualquier causa) (OR 0,99; IC del 95%: 0,81 a 1,21; evidencia de certeza moderada). Los efectos comparativos de los FEE comparados con otro FEE sobre la mortalidad (por cualquier causa) fueron inciertos en evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja. Es probable que la epoetina beta aumentara el riesgo de hipertensión en comparación con el placebo (OR 2,17; IC del 95%: 1,17 a 4,00; evidencia de certeza moderada). En comparación con el placebo, la epoetina alfa (OR 2,10; IC del 95%: 1,22 a 3,59; evidencia de certeza muy baja), la epoetina beta (OR 1,88; IC del 95%: 1,12 a 3,14; evidencia de certeza baja) y la metoxi­polietilenglicol epoetina beta (OR 1,98; IC del 95%: 1,05 a 3,74; evidencia de certeza baja) podrían aumentar las probabilidades de hipertensión, pero una epoetina biosimilar (OR 1,88; IC del 95%: 0,96 a 3,67; evidencia de certeza baja) y una darbepoetina alfa biosimilar (OR 1,98; IC del 95%: 0,84 a 4,66; evidencia de certeza baja) tuvieron efectos inciertos sobre la hipertensión. Los efectos comparativos de todos los FEE comparados con otro FEE, placebo o ningún tratamiento sobre la mortalidad cardiovascular, el infarto de miocardio, el accidente cerebrovascular, la trombosis de acceso vascular, la insuficiencia renal y la disnea fueron inciertos. El análisis en red para el cansancio no fue posible debido a los pocos datos disponibles. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Los efectos comparativos de los diferentes FEE sobre las transfusiones de sangre, la mortalidad (por cualquier causa y cardiovascular), los eventos cardiovasculares mayores, el infarto de miocardio, el accidente cerebrovascular, la trombosis de acceso vascular, la insuficiencia renal, el cansancio y la disnea fueron inciertos.

Dietary Phosphorus, Its Sources, and Mortality in Adults on Haemodialysis: The DIET-HD Study.

Dietary phosphorus restrictions are usually recommended for people on haemodialysis, although its impact on patient-relevant outcomes is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association between total phosphorus intake and its sources with mortality in haemodialysis. Phosphorus intake was ascertained within the DIET-HD study in 8110 adults on haemodialysis. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the association between the total and source-specific phosphorus (plant-, animal-, or processed and other sources) with mortality. During a median 3.8 years of follow-up, there were 2953 deaths, 1160 cardiovascular-related. The median phosphorus intake was 1388 mg/day. Every standard deviation (SD) (896 mg/day) increase in total phosphorus was associated with higher all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.06-1.26] and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.36). Every SD (17%) increase in the proportion of phosphorus from plant sources was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99). Every SD (9%) increase in the proportion of phosphorus from the processed and other sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10). A higher total phosphorus intake was associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular death. This association is driven largely by the phosphorus intake from processed food. Plant based phosphorus was associated with lower all-cause mortality.

Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilisers for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia occurs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is more prevalent with lower levels of kidney function. Anaemia in CKD is associated with death related to cardiovascular (CV) disease and infection. Established treatments include erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions. Oral hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF) stabilisers are now available to manage anaemia in people with CKD. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the benefits and potential harms of HIF stabilisers for the management of anaemia in people with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 22 November 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to our review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating hypoxia-inducible factors stabilisers compared to placebo, standard care, ESAs or iron supplementation in people with CKD were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects pair-wise meta-analysis and expressed as a relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies randomising 30,994 adults. These studies compared HIF stabilisers to either placebo or an ESA. Compared to placebo, HIF stabiliser therapy had uncertain effects on CV death (10 studies, 1114 participants): RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 70.21; very low certainty evidence), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (3 studies, 822 participants): RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.36; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), probably decreases the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (8 studies, 4329 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and increases the proportion of patients reaching the target haemoglobin (Hb) (10 studies, 5102 participants): RR 8.36, 95% CI 6.42 to 10.89; I² = 37%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to ESAs, HIF stabiliser therapy may make little or no difference to CV death (17 studies, 10,340 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), nonfatal MI (7 studies, 7765 participants): RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and nonfatal stroke (5 studies, 7285 participants): RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.56; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence), and had uncertain effects on fatigue (2 studies, 3471 participants): RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence). HIF stabiliser therapy probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (11 studies, 10,786 participants): RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; I² = 25%; moderate certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference on the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb (14 studies, 4601 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; I² = 70%; low certainty evidence), compared to ESA. The effect of HIF stabilisers on hospitalisation for heart failure, peripheral arterial events, loss of unassisted dialysis vascular access patency, access intervention, cancer, infection, pulmonary hypertension and diabetic nephropathy was uncertain. None of the included studies reported life participation. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HIF stabiliser management of anaemia had uncertain effects on CV death, fatigue, death (any cause), CV outcomes, and kidney failure compared to placebo or ESAs. Compared to placebo or ESAs, HIF stabiliser management of anaemia probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusions, and probably increased the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb when compared to placebo.

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.

Healthy Lifestyle and Mortality Among Adults Receiving Hemodialysis: The DIET-HD Study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A healthy lifestyle promotes cardiovascular health and reduces cardiac-related mortality in the general population, but its benefits for people receiving maintenance hemodialysis are uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 5,483 of 9,757 consecutive adults receiving maintenance hemodialysis (January 2014 to June 2017, median dialysis vintage: 3.6 years) in a multinational private dialysis network and with complete lifestyle data. EXPOSURE: Based on the American Heart Association's recommendations for cardiovascular prevention, a modified healthy lifestyle score was the sum of 4 components addressing use of smoking tobacco, physical activity, diet, and control of systolic blood pressure. OUTCOME: Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Adjusted proportional hazards regression analyses with country as a random effect to estimate the associations between lifestyle score (low [0-2 points] as the referent, medium [3-5], and high [6-8]) and mortality. Associations were expressed as adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) with 95% CI. RESULTS: During a median of 3.8 years (17,451 person-years in total), there were 2,163 deaths, of which 826 were related to cardiovascular disease. Compared with patients who had a low lifestyle score, the AHRs for all-cause mortality among those with medium and high lifestyle scores were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.54-0.76), respectively. Compared with patients who had a low lifestyle score, the AHRs for cardiovascular mortality among those with medium and high lifestyle scores were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.91) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Self-reported lifestyle, data-driven approach. CONCLUSIONS: A healthier lifestyle is associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis.

Calcifediol supplementation in adults on hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risks of mortality in people with chronic kidney disease. The benefits and harm of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality are unknown. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of calcifediol in reducing mortality in patients with vitamin D insufficiency on hemodialysis compared to no additional therapy. METHODS: A phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial was conducted including 284 adults with vitamin D insufficiency undergoing hemodialysis who were randomly assigned to receive oral calcifediol or standard care for 24 months. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-four participants were enrolled (143 assigned to the calcifediol group and 141 to the no additional therapy group). The primary outcome (mortality) occurred in 34 and 31 participants in the calcifediol and control group, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.67]. Calcifediol had no detectable effects on cardiovascular death (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.41-2.74), non-cardiovascular death (HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.62-2.04), nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR 0.20; 95% CI 0.02-1.67) or nonfatal stroke (HR could not be estimated). The incidence of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia was similar between groups. None of the participants underwent parathyroidectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In adults treated with hemodialysis and who had vitamin D insufficiency, calcifediol supplementation for 24 months had inconclusive effects on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01457001.

Self-Reported Physical Activity and Survival in Adults Treated With Hemodialysis: A DIET-HD Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Regular physical activity is associated with longevity in adults receiving hemodialysis, but it is uncertain whether this association varies by causal pathways (cardiovascular and noncardiovascular). METHODS: DIET-HD was a prospective, multinational study of adults undergoing hemodialysis across Europe and Argentina. We classified participants as physically inactive, occasionally active (irregularly to once a week), or frequently active (twice a week or more), using a self-reported questionnaire. Potential confounders were balanced across exposure groups using propensity scores. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models with double robust estimators evaluated the association between physical activity and all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality. RESULTS: Of 8043 participants in DIET-HD, 6147 (76%) had information on physical activity. A total of 2940 (48%) were physically inactive, 1981 (32%) occasionally active, and 1226 (20%) frequently active. In a median follow-up of 3.8 years (19,677 person-years), 2337 (38%) deaths occurred, including 1050 (45%) from cardiovascular causes. After propensity score weighting, occasional physical activity was associated with lower all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72-0.89), cardiovascular (aHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.96), and noncardiovascular (aHR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.69-0.94) mortality compared with inactivity. Frequent physical activity was associated with lower all-cause (aHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71-0.95) and cardiovascular (aHR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.62-0.94) mortality, but not noncardiovascular mortality (aHR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.72-1.08). A dose-dependent association of physical activity with cardiovascular death was observed (P trend = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared with self-reported physical inactivity, occasional and frequent physical activities were associated, dose dependently, with lower cardiovascular mortality in adults receiving hemodialysis.

Dietary Potassium Intake and All-Cause Mortality in Adults Treated with Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dietary potassium restriction in people receiving maintenance hemodialysis is standard practice and is recommended in guidelines, despite a lack of evidence. We aimed to assess the association between dietary potassium intake and mortality and whether hyperkalemia mediates this association. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A total of 8043 adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis in Europe and South America were included in the DIETary intake, death and hospitalization in adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with HemoDialysis (DIET-HD) study. We measured baseline potassium intake from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network food frequency questionnaire and performed time-to-event and mediation analyses. RESULTS: The median potassium intake at baseline was 3.5 (interquartile range, 2.5-5.0) g/d. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years (25,890 person-years), we observed 2921 (36%) deaths. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, including cardiac disease and food groups, dietary potassium intake was not associated with all-cause mortality (per 1 g/d higher dietary potassium intake: hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.95 to 1.05). A mediation analysis showed no association of potassium intake with mortality, either through or independent of serum potassium (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00 and hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.06, respectively). Potassium intake was not significantly associated with serum levels (0.03; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.07 mEq/L per 1 g/d higher dietary potassium intake) or the prevalence of hyperkalemia (≥6.0 mEq/L) at baseline (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.37 per 1 g/d higher dietary potassium intake). Hyperkalemia was associated with cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.48). CONCLUSIONS: Higher dietary intake of potassium is not associated with hyperkalemia or death in patients treated with hemodialysis.

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately affects people with chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in people with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed through February 2021. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: People with CKD with or without COVID-19. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidences of COVID-19, death, respiratory failure, dyspnea, recovery, intensive care admission, hospital admission, need for supplemental oxygen, hospital discharge, sepsis, short-term dialysis, acute kidney injury, and fatigue. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Random-effects meta-analysis and evidence certainty adjudicated using an adapted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: 348 studies (382,407 participants with COVID-19 and CKD; 1,139,979 total participants with CKD) were included. Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher in people with CKD treated with dialysis (105 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 91-120; 95% prediction interval [PrI], 25-235; 59 studies; 468,233 participants) than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy (16 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 4-33; 95% PrI, 0-92; 5 studies; 70,683 participants) or in kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients (23 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 18-30; 95% PrI, 2-67; 29 studies; 120,281 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of death in people with CKD and COVID-19 was 32 per 1,000 person-weeks (95% CI, 30-35; 95% PrI, 4-81; 229 studies; 70,922 participants), which may be higher than in people with CKD without COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 10.26; 95% CI, 6.78-15.53; 95% PrI, 2.62-40.15; 4 studies; 18,347 participants). LIMITATIONS: Analyses were generally based on low-certainty evidence. Few studies reported outcomes in people with CKD without COVID-19 to calculate the excess risk attributable to COVID-19, and potential confounders were not adjusted for in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 may be higher in people receiving maintenance dialysis than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy or those who are kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients. People with CKD and COVID-19 may have a higher incidence of death than people with CKD without COVID-19.

Dietary intake in adults on hemodialysis compared with guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines of dietary management are designed to promote a balanced diet and maintain health in patients undergoing haemodialysis but they may not reflect patients' preferences. We aimed to investigate the consistency between the dietary intake of patients on maintenance haemodialysis and guideline recommendations. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the DIET-HD study, which included 6,906 adults undergoing haemodialysis in 10 European countries. Dietary intake was determined using the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN) Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ), and compared with the European Best Practice Guidelines. Consistency with guidelines was defined as achieving the minimum daily recommended intake for energy (≥ 30 kcal/kg) and protein (≥ 1.1 g/kg), and not exceeding the maximum recommended daily intake for phosphate (≤ 1000 mg), potassium (≤ 2730 mg), sodium (≤ 2300 mg) and calcium (≤ 800 mg). RESULTS: Overall, patients' dietary intakes of phosphate and potassium were infrequently consistent with guidelines (consistent in 25% and 25% of patients, respectively). Almost half of the patients reported that energy (45%) and calcium intake (53%) was consistent with the guidelines, while the recommended intake of sodium and protein was consistent in 85% and 67% of patients, respectively. Results were similar across all participating countries. Intake was consistent with all six guideline recommendations in only 1% of patients. CONCLUSION: Patients on maintenance haemodialysis usually have a dietary intake which is inconsistent with current recommendations, especially for phosphate and potassium.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. RESULTS: 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials. RESULTS: Sixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit - patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities - some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden - patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust - patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence - patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community - altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials. CONCLUSION: Improving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

A practical guide to multiple imputation of missing data in nephrology.

Health data are often plagued with missing values that can greatly reduce the sample size if only complete cases are considered for analysis. Furthermore, analyses that ignore missing data have the potential to introduce bias in the parameter estimates. Multiple imputation techniques have been developed to recover the information that would otherwise be lost when excluding observations with missing data and to help minimize bias. However, the validity of analyses using imputed data relies on the imputation model having been correctly specified. The aim of this guide is to aid the reader in the decision-making process when conducting an analysis with multiply imputed data in the context of nephrology research. We discuss (i) missing mechanism assumption, (ii) imputation method, (iii) imputation model, (iv) derived variables, (v) the number of imputed data sets, (vi) diagnostic checks, (vii) analysis and pooling of results, and (viii) reporting the results. This process is demonstrated using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to explore the association between hypertension and kidney disease in adults from the general population. Example code is provided for SAS software and the mice package in R.

DIABETIC MACULAR EDEMA AND CATARACT SURGERY: Phacoemulsification Combined With Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant Compared With Standard Phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE: To compare functional and anatomical results of combined phacoemulsification and dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex; DEX-I) with standard phacoemulsification in diabetic patients with cataract. METHODS: Retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and cataract, treated routinely at the Eye Clinic, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico, Bari, Italy with phacoemulsification associated with DEX-I (n = 23; Phaco-Dex) or standard phacoemulsification (n = 23; Phaco-alone). Best-correct visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and intraocular pressure were assessed at baseline and monthly for 3 months after surgery, and t-test was used to assess change from baseline. A multilevel regression model with an unstructured correlation-type matrix to account for repeated data measures was used for statistical analysis in and between groups. RESULTS: With Phaco-Dex, best-correct visual acuity increased significantly from the first month (P = 0.0005 vs. baseline) and remained stable at the following visits; central subfield thickness decreased significantly from Month 2 (P = 0.049 and P = 0.04 vs. baseline, respectively); at each timepoint, central subfield thickness was significantly lower in the Phaco-Dex group versus Phaco-alone. Intraocular pressure increased significantly during follow-up (P = 0.001 at Month 3 vs. baseline) but remained within the normal range. In the Phaco-alone group, best-correct visual acuity, and intraocular pressure did not show any significant changes after surgery, whereas central subfield thickness increased from Month 2 (P = 0.05 vs. baseline). CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients with macular edema and visually significant cataract, combined treatment with phacoemulsification and DEX-I seemed to be effective, safe, and superior to standard phacoemulsification considering both functional and tomographic parameters.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Potassium binders for chronic hyperkalaemia in people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalaemia is a common electrolyte abnormality caused by reduced renal potassium excretion in patients with chronic kidney diseases (CKD). Potassium binders, such as sodium polystyrene sulfonate and calcium polystyrene sulfonate, are widely used but may lead to constipation and other adverse gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, reducing their tolerability. Patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate are newer ion exchange resins for treatment of hyperkalaemia which may cause fewer GI side-effects. Although more recent studies are focusing on clinically-relevant endpoints such as cardiac complications or death, the evidence on safety is still limited. Given the recent expansion in the available treatment options, it is appropriate to review the evidence of effectiveness and tolerability of all potassium exchange resins among people with CKD, with the aim to provide guidance to consumers, practitioners, and policy-makers. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of potassium binders for treating chronic hyperkalaemia among adults and children with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 March 2020 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled studies (quasi-RCTs) evaluating potassium binders for chronic hyperkalaemia administered in adults and children with CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised by random effects meta-analysis and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE processes. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies, randomising 1849 adult participants were eligible for inclusion. Twelve studies involved participants with CKD (stages 1 to 5) not requiring dialysis and three studies were among participants treated with haemodialysis. Potassium binders included calcium polystyrene sulfonate, sodium polystyrene sulfonate, patiromer, and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate. A range of routes, doses, and timing of drug administration were used. Study duration varied from 12 hours to 52 weeks (median 4 weeks). Three were cross-over studies. The mean study age ranged from 53.1 years to 73 years. No studies evaluated treatment in children. Some studies had methodological domains that were at high or unclear risks of bias, leading to low certainty in the results. Studies were not designed to measure treatment effects on cardiac arrhythmias or major GI symptoms. Ten studies (1367 randomised participants) compared a potassium binder to placebo. The certainty of the evidence was low for all outcomes. We categorised treatments in newer agents (patiromer or sodium zirconium cyclosilicate) and older agents (calcium polystyrene sulfonate and sodium polystyrene sulfonate). Patiromer or sodium zirconium cyclosilicate may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (4 studies, 688 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.11, 4.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence) in CKD. The treatment effect of older potassium binders on death (any cause) was unknown. One cardiovascular death was reported with potassium binder in one study, showing that there was no difference between patiromer or sodium zirconium cyclosilicate and placebo for cardiovascular death in CKD and HD. There was no evidence of a difference between patiromer or sodium zirconium cyclosilicate and placebo for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at the end of treatment (one study) in CKD or HD. Potassium binders had uncertain effects on nausea (3 studies, 229 participants: RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.65, 6.78; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), diarrhoea (5 studies, 720 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.47, 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), and vomiting (2 studies, 122 participants: RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 8.51; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence) in CKD. Potassium binders may lower serum potassium levels (at the end of treatment) (3 studies, 277 participants: MD -0.62 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.97, -0.27; I2 = 92%; low certainty evidence) in CKD and HD. Potassium binders had uncertain effects on constipation (4 studies, 425 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.71, 3.52; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence) in CKD. Potassium binders may decrease systolic blood pressure (BP) (2 studies, 369 participants: MD -3.73 mmHg, 95%CI -6.64 to -0.83; I2 = 79%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (one study) at the end of the treatment. No study reported outcome data for cardiac arrhythmias or major GI events. Calcium polystyrene sulfonate may make little or no difference to serum potassium levels at end of treatment, compared to sodium polystyrene sulfonate (2 studies, 117 participants: MD 0.38 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.79; I2 = 42%, low certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in systolic BP (one study), diastolic BP (one study), or constipation (one study) between calcium polystyrene sulfonate and sodium polystyrene sulfonate. There was no difference between high-dose and low-dose patiromer for death (sudden death) (one study), stroke (one study), myocardial infarction (one study), or constipation (one study). The comparative effects whether potassium binders were administered with or without food, laxatives, or sorbitol, were very uncertain with insufficient data to perform meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supporting clinical decision-making for different potassium binders to treat chronic hyperkalaemia in adults with CKD is of low certainty; no studies were identified in children. Available studies have not been designed to measure treatment effects on clinical outcomes such as cardiac arrhythmias or major GI symptoms. This review suggests the need for a large, adequately powered study of potassium binders versus placebo that assesses clinical outcomes of relevance to patients, clinicians and policy-makers. This data could be used to assess cost-effectiveness, given the lack of definitive studies and the clinical importance of potassium binders for chronic hyperkalaemia in people with CKD.