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.

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.

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 microalbuminuria (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interventions for minimal change disease in adults with nephrotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Steroids have been used widely since the early 1970s for the treatment of adult-onset minimal change disease (MCD). Recently, newer agents have been used in adult MCD aiming to reduce the risk of adverse effects. The response rates to immunosuppressive agents in adult MCD are more variable than in children. The optimal agent, dose, and duration of treatment for the first episode of nephrotic syndrome, or for disease relapse(s) have not been determined. This is an update of a review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to 1) evaluate the benefits and harms of different agents, including both immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive agents, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome; and 2) evaluate the efficacy of interventions on 'time-to-remission' of nephrotic syndrome, in adults with MCD causing the nephrotic syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 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: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for MCD with nephrotic syndrome in adults over 18 years were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (769 randomised participants) were identified; four studies evaluated different prednisolone regimens, eight studies evaluated the calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) (tacrolimus or cyclosporin), two studies evaluated enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and one study evaluated levamisole. In all but two studies of non-corticosteroid agents, reduced-dose prednisolone was given with the treatment agent and the comparator was high-dose prednisolone. In the risk of bias assessment, 11 and seven studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. No studies were at low risk of performance bias and eight studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, 10 and six studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Compared with no specific treatment, it is uncertain whether prednisolone increases the number with complete remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.19), complete or partial remission (1 study, 28 participants: RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.95), subsequent relapse (1 study, 28 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.17), or reduces the adverse effects because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with oral prednisolone alone, it is uncertain whether intravenous methylprednisolone and prednisolone increase the number with complete remission (2 studies, 35 participants: RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 18.32; I² = 90%), relapse (two studies, 19 participants. RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.15; I² = 0%) or adverse events because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared with prednisolone alone, CNIs with reduced-dose prednisolone or without prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number achieving complete remission (8 studies; 492 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I² = 0%), complete or partial remission (4 studies, 269 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; I² = 0%), or relapse (7 studies; 422 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.03; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), may reduce the risk of obesity or Cushing's Syndrome (5 studies; 388 participants: RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.59; I² = 45%) and the risk of acne (4 studies; 270 participants: RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; I² = 0%) (low certainty evidence); and had uncertain effects on diabetes or hyperglycaemia, hypertension, and acute kidney injury (AKI) (low certainty evidence). Compared with prednisolone alone, EC-MPS with reduced-dose prednisolone probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission at 4 weeks (1 study, 114 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50), and at 24 weeks probably make little or no difference to the number undergoing complete remission (2 studies, 134 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.38; I² = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence), complete or partial remission (2 studies 134 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12; I² = 0%), relapse (2 studies, 83 participants: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.74; I² = 56%) (low certainty evidence); or to the adverse events of new-onset glucose intolerance, death, or AKI (low certainty evidence). One study (24 participants) compared levamisole and prednisolone with prednisolone in patients with relapsing disease. The authors identified no differences in mean relapse rate or adverse effects but no standard deviations were provided. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review has identified evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of CNIs and EC-MPS with or without reduced-dose prednisolone compared with prednisolone alone for the induction of remission in adults with MCD and nephrotic syndrome with some reductions in steroid-associated adverse events. RCT data on the efficacy and adverse effects of rituximab in adults with MCD are awaited. Further, adequately powered RCTs are required to determine the relative efficacies of CNIs and EC-MPS and to evaluate these medications in patients with relapsing or steroid-resistant disease.

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.

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.

Calcium channel blockers for people with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are used to manage hypertension which is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The treatment for hypertension is particularly challenging in people undergoing dialysis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of calcium channel blockers in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 27 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised 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: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any type of CCB with other CCB, different doses of the same CCB, other antihypertensives, control or placebo were included. The minimum study duration was 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: This review included 13 studies (24 reports) randomising 1459 participants treated with long-term haemodialysis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (622 participants). No studies were performed in children or in those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear to high across most domains. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies, respectively. Two studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in 10 studies. Three studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and five studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. No events were reported for cardiovascular death in any of the comparisons. Other side effects were rarely reported and studies were not designed to measure costs. Five studies (451 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic (1 study, 39 participants: MD -27.00 mmHg, 95% CI -43.33 to -10.67; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure level (2 studies, 76 participants; MD -13.56 mmHg, 95% CI -19.65 to -7.48; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (2 studies, 287 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.15; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Other side effects were not reported. Eight studies (1037 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 8.62; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 1.49 mmHg, 95% CI -2.23 to 5.21; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to other antihypertensives. There was no evidence of a difference in the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (1 study, 92 participants: RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.79; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Other side effects were not reported. Dihydropyridine CCB may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (1 study, 40 participants: MD -4 mmHg, 95% CI -11.99 to 3.99; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (1 study, 40 participants: MD -3.00 mmHg, 95% CI -7.06 to 1.06; low certainty evidence) compared to non-dihydropyridine CCB. There was no evidence of a difference in other side effects (1 study, 40 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.36; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCB and non-dihydropyridine CCB. Intradialytic hypotension was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of CCBs over other antihypertensives on predialysis blood pressure levels and intradialytic hypotension among people with CKD who required haemodialysis were uncertain. Effects of CCBs on other side effects and cardiovascular death also remain uncertain. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic and diastolic blood pressure level compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies were identified in children or peritoneal dialysis. Available studies have not been designed to measure the effects on costs. The shortcomings of the studies were that they recruited very few participants, had few events, had very short follow-up periods, some outcomes were not reported, and the reporting of outcomes such as changes in blood pressure was not done uniformly across studies. Well-designed RCTs, conducted in both adults and children with CKD requiring both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, evaluating both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs against other antihypertensives are required. Future research should be focused on outcomes relevant to patients (including death and cardiovascular disease), blood pressure changes, risk of side effects and healthcare costs to assist decision-making in clinical practice.

Aldosterone antagonists in addition to renin angiotensin system antagonists for preventing the progression of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, resolution of proteinuria may be incomplete with these therapies and the addition of an aldosterone antagonist may be added to further prevent progression of CKD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of aldosterone antagonists (selective (eplerenone), non-selective (spironolactone or canrenone), or non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists (finerenone)) in adults who have CKD with proteinuria (nephrotic and non-nephrotic range) on: patient-centred endpoints including kidney failure (previously know as end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)), major cardiovascular events, and death (any cause); kidney function (proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and doubling of serum creatinine); blood pressure; and adverse events (including hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury, and gynaecomastia). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 January 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: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared aldosterone antagonists in combination with ACEi or ARB (or both) to other anti-hypertensive strategies or placebo in participants with proteinuric CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. We expressed summary treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were used together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four studies (5745 participants) were included. Risk of bias in the evaluated methodological domains were unclear or high risk in most studies. Adequate random sequence generation was present in 12 studies, allocation concealment in five studies, blinding of participant and investigators in 18 studies, blinding of outcome assessment in 15 studies, and complete outcome reporting in 24 studies. All studies comparing aldosterone antagonists to placebo or standard care were used in addition to an ACEi or ARB (or both). None of the studies were powered to detect differences in patient-level outcomes including kidney failure, major cardiovascular events or death. Aldosterone antagonists had uncertain effects on kidney failure (2 studies, 84 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.65, I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), death (3 studies, 421 participants: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.50, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and cardiovascular events (3 studies, 1067 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.56; I² = 42%; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce protein excretion (14 studies, 1193 participants: SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.20, I² = 82%; very low certainty evidence), eGFR (13 studies, 1165 participants, MD -3.00 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -5.51 to -0.49, I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) and systolic blood pressure (14 studies, 911 participants: MD -4.98 mmHg, 95% CI -8.22 to -1.75, I² = 87%; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists probably increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (17 studies, 3001 participants: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.22, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), acute kidney injury (5 studies, 1446 participants: RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.97, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and gynaecomastia (4 studies, 281 participants: RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.14 to 23.23, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Non-selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB had uncertain effects on protein excretion (2 studies, 139 participants: SMD -1.59, 95% CI -3.80 to 0.62, I² = 93%; very low certainty evidence) but may increase serum potassium (2 studies, 121 participants: MD 0.31 mEq/L, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared to diuretics plus ACEi or ARB. Selective aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 500 participants: RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.95, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared ACEi or ARB (or both). There were insufficient studies to perform meta-analyses for the comparison between non-selective aldosterone antagonists and calcium channel blockers, selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB (or both) and nitrate plus ACEi or ARB (or both), and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists and selective aldosterone antagonists. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of aldosterone antagonists when added to ACEi or ARB (or both) on the risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and kidney failure in people with proteinuric CKD are uncertain. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce proteinuria, eGFR, and systolic blood pressure in adults who have mild to moderate CKD but may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury and gynaecomastia when added to ACEi and/or ARB.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. 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, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

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.

Immunosuppressive agents for treating IgA nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: IgA nephropathy is the most common glomerulonephritis world-wide. IgA nephropathy causes end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in 15% to 20% of affected patients within 10 years and in 30% to 40% of patients within 20 years from the onset of disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of immunosuppression strategies for the treatment of IgA nephropathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 September 2019 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 included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of treatment for IgA nephropathy in adults and children and that compared immunosuppressive agents with placebo, no treatment, or other immunosuppressive or non-immunosuppressive agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. Estimates of treatment effect were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. Treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies involving 3933 randomised participants were included. Six studies involving children were eligible. Disease characteristics (kidney function and level of proteinuria) were heterogeneous across studies. Studies evaluating steroid therapy generally included patients with protein excretion of 1 g/day or more. Risk of bias within the included studies was generally high or unclear for many of the assessed methodological domains. In patients with IgA nephropathy and proteinuria > 1 g/day, steroid therapy given for generally two to four months with a tapering course probably prevents the progression to ESKD compared to placebo or standard care (8 studies; 741 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; moderate certainty evidence). Steroid therapy may induce complete remission (4 studies, 305 participants: RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.01; low certainty evidence), prevent doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (7 studies, 404 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.65; low certainty evidence), and may lower urinary protein excretion (10 studies, 705 participants: MD -0.58 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.33;low certainty evidence). Steroid therapy had uncertain effects on glomerular filtration rate (GFR), death, infection and malignancy. The risk of adverse events with steroid therapy was uncertain due to heterogeneity in the type of steroid treatment used and the rarity of events. Cytotoxic agents (azathioprine (AZA) or cyclophosphamide (CPA) alone or with concomitant steroid therapy had uncertain effects on ESKD (7 studies, 463 participants: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; low certainty evidence), complete remission (5 studies; 381 participants: RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.30; very low certainty evidence), GFR (any measure), and protein excretion. Doubling of serum creatinine was not reported. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) had uncertain effects on the progression to ESKD, complete remission, doubling of SCr, GFR, protein excretion, infection, and malignancy. Death was not reported. Calcineurin inhibitors compared with placebo or standard care had uncertain effects on complete remission, SCr, GFR, protein excretion, infection, and malignancy. ESKD and death were not reported. Mizoribine administered with renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment had uncertain effects on progression to ESKD, complete remission, GFR, protein excretion, infection, and malignancy. Death and SCr were not reported. Leflunomide followed by a tapering course with oral prednisone compared to prednisone had uncertain effects on the progression to ESKD, complete remission, doubling of SCr, GFR, protein excretion, and infection. Death and malignancy were not reported. Effects of other immunosuppressive regimens (including steroid plus non-immunosuppressive agents or mTOR inhibitors) were inconclusive primarily due to insufficient data from the individual studies in low or very low certainty evidence. The effects of treatments on death, malignancy, reduction in GFR at least of 25% and adverse events were very uncertain. Subgroup analyses to determine the impact of specific patient characteristics such as ethnicity or disease severity on treatment effectiveness were not possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In moderate certainty evidence, corticosteroid therapy probably prevents decline in GFR or doubling of SCr in adults and children with IgA nephropathy and proteinuria. Evidence for treatment effects of immunosuppressive agents on death, infection, and malignancy is generally sparse or low-quality. Steroid therapy has uncertain adverse effects due to a paucity of studies. Available studies are few, small, have high risk of bias and generally do not systematically identify treatment-related harms. Subgroup analyses to identify specific patient characteristics that might predict better response to therapy were not possible due to a lack of studies. There is no evidence that other immunosuppressive agents including CPA, AZA, or MMF improve clinical outcomes in IgA nephropathy.

Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and 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 included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.

Benefits and harms of high-dose haemodiafiltration versus high-flux haemodialysis: the comparison of high-dose haemodiafiltration with high-flux haemodialysis (CONVINCE) trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a major public health problem affecting more than 2 million people worldwide. It is one of the most severe chronic non-communicable diseases. Haemodialysis (HD) is the most common therapeutic option but is also associated with a risk of cardiovascular events, hospitalisation and suboptimal quality of life. Over the past decades, haemodiafiltration (HDF) has become available. Although high-dose HDF has shown some promising survival advantage compared to conventional HD, the evidence remains controversial. A Cochrane systematic review found, in low-quality trials, with various convective forms of dialysis, a reduction in cardiovascular, but not all-cause mortality and the effects on non-fatal cardiovascular events and hospitalisation were uncertain. In contrast, an individual patient data analysis suggested that high-dose HDF reduced both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to HD. In view of these discrepant results, a definitive trial is required to determine whether high-dose HDF is preferable to high-flux HD. The comparison of high-dose HDF with high-flux HD (CONVINCE) study will assess the benefits and harms of high-dose HDF versus a conventional high-flux HD in adults with ESKD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This international, prospective, open label, randomised controlled trial aims to recruit 1800 ESKD adults treated with HD in nine European countries. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to high-dose HDF versus continuation of conventional high-flux HD. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 3 years' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular events, all-cause and infection-related hospitalisations, patient-reported outcomes (eg, health-related quality of life) and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The CONVINCE study will address the question of benefits and harms of high-dose HDF compared to high-flux HD for kidney replacement therapy in patients with ESKD with a focus on survival, patient perspectives and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR 7138).