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

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effects of specific blood pressure (BP) lowering treatments on patient-important outcomes following kidney transplantation are uncertain. Our 2009 Cochrane review found that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) improved graft function and prevented graft loss, while the evidence for other BP-lowering treatments was limited. This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 3 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating any BP-lowering agent in recipients of a functioning kidney transplant for at least two weeks were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised using the random-effects model and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) processes. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, graft loss, and kidney function. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-seven studies (8706 participants) were included. One study evaluated treatment in children. The overall risk of bias was unclear to high across all domains. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, CCBs probably reduce all-cause death (23 studies, 3327 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) and graft loss (24 studies, 3577 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may make little or no difference to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (11 studies, 2250 participants: MD 1.89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.48; I2 = 48%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (13 studies, 906 participants: RR 10.8, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may reduce systolic BP (SBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -5.83 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.42; I2 = 13%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (DBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -3.98 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.98 to -1.99; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). CCBs have uncertain effects on proteinuria. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (7 studies, 702 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), graft loss (6 studies, 718 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGFR (4 studies, 509 participants: MD -2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -7.66 to 2.73; I2 = 64%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (4 studies, 388 participants: RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ACEi may reduce proteinuria (5 studies, 441 participants: MD -0.33 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.01; I2 = 67%; low certainty evidence) but had uncertain effects on SBP and DBP. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (6 studies, 1041 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGRF (5 studies, 300 participants: MD -1.91 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -6.20 to 2.38; I2 = 57%; low certainty evidence), and acute rejection (4 studies, 323 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ARBs may reduce graft loss (6 studies, 892 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), SBP (10 studies, 1239 participants: MD -3.73 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.02 to -0.44; I2 = 63%; moderate certainty evidence) and DBP (9 studies, 1086 participants: MD -2.75 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.18; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty evidence), but has uncertain effects on proteinuria. The effects of CCBs, ACEi or ARB compared to placebo or standard care alone on cardiovascular outcomes (including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke) or other adverse events were uncertain. The comparative effects of ACEi plus ARB dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone were rarely evaluated. Head-to-head comparisons of ACEi, ARB or thiazide versus CCB, ACEi versus ARB, CCB or ACEi versus alpha- or beta-blockers, or ACEi plus CCB dual therapy versus ACEi or CCB monotherapy were scarce. No studies reported outcome data for cancer or life participation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For kidney transplant recipients, the use of CCB therapy to reduce BP probably reduces death and graft loss compared to placebo or standard care alone, while ARB may reduce graft loss. The effects of ACEi and ARB compared to placebo or standard care on other patient-centred outcomes were uncertain. The effects of dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone and the comparative effects of different treatments were uncertain.

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

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is associated with high risks of premature chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular diseases, cardiovascular death and impaired quality of life. People with diabetes are more likely to develop kidney impairment, and approximately one in three adults with diabetes have CKD. People with CKD and diabetes experience a substantially higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown potential effects in preventing kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes. However, new trials are emerging rapidly, and evidence synthesis is essential to summarising cumulative evidence. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of SGLT2 inhibitors for people with CKD and diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 November 2023 using a search strategy designed by an Information Specialist. Studies in the Register are continually identified through regular searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies were eligible if they evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors versus placebo, standard care or other glucose-lowering agents in people with CKD and diabetes. CKD includes all stages (from 1 to 5), including dialysis patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects meta-analysis and expressed as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary review outcomes were all-cause death, 3-point and 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, and kidney failure. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies randomising 65,241 people with CKD and diabetes were included. SGLT2 inhibitors with or without other background treatments were compared to placebo, standard care, sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, or insulin. In the majority of domains, the risks of bias in the included studies were low or unclear. No studies evaluated the treatment in children or in people treated with dialysis. No studies compared SGLT2 inhibitors with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or tirzepatide. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors decreased the risk of all-cause death (20 studies, 44,397 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; high certainty) and cardiovascular death (16 studies, 43,792 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; I2 = 29%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably make little or no difference to the risk of fatal or nonfatal MI (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14; I2 = 24%; moderate certainty), and fatal or nonfatal stroke (2 studies, 13,726 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably decrease 3-point MACE (7 studies, 38,320 participants: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; I2 = 46%; moderate certainty), and 4-point MACE (4 studies, 23,539 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96; I2 = 77%; moderate certainty), and decrease hospital admission due to heart failure (6 studies, 28,339 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 17%; high certainty). Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors may decrease creatinine clearance (1 study, 132 participants: MD -2.63 mL/min, 95% CI -5.19 to -0.07; low certainty) and probably decrease the doubling of serum creatinine (2 studies, 12,647 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89; I2 = 53%; moderate certainty). SGLT2 inhibitors decrease the risk of kidney failure (6 studies, 11,232 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and kidney composite outcomes (generally reported as kidney failure, kidney death with or without ≥ 40% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) (7 studies, 36,380 participants: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78; I2 = 25%; high certainty) compared to placebo. Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors incur less hypoglycaemia (16 studies, 28,322 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and hypoglycaemia requiring third-party assistance (14 studies, 26,478 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88; I2 = 0%; high certainty), and probably decrease the withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (15 studies, 16,622 participants: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.08; I2 = 16%; moderate certainty). The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on eGFR, amputation and fracture were uncertain. No studies evaluated the effects of treatment on fatigue, life participation, or lactic acidosis. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors compared to standard care alone, sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitors, or insulin were uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2 inhibitors alone or added to standard care decrease all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and kidney failure and probably decrease major cardiovascular events while incurring less hypoglycaemia compared to placebo in people with CKD and diabetes.

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.

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.

Effects of Allopurinol on the Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated serum urate levels are associated with progression of chronic kidney disease. Whether urate-lowering treatment with allopurinol can attenuate the decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for progression is not known. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we randomly assigned adults with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease and no history of gout who had a urinary albumin:creatinine ratio of 265 or higher (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine in grams) or an eGFR decrease of at least 3.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area in the preceding year to receive allopurinol (100 to 300 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome was the change in eGFR from randomization to week 104, calculated with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration creatinine equation. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped because of slow recruitment after 369 of 620 intended patients were randomly assigned to receive allopurinol (185 patients) or placebo (184 patients). Three patients per group withdrew immediately after randomization. The remaining 363 patients (mean eGFR, 31.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; median urine albumin:creatinine ratio, 716.9; mean serum urate level, 8.2 mg per deciliter) were included in the assessment of the primary outcome. The change in eGFR did not differ significantly between the allopurinol group and the placebo group (-3.33 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year [95% confidence interval {CI}, -4.11 to -2.55] and -3.23 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, -3.98 to -2.47], respectively; mean difference, -0.10 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, -1.18 to 0.97]; P = 0.85). Serious adverse events were reported in 84 of 182 patients (46%) in the allopurinol group and in 79 of 181 patients (44%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic kidney disease and a high risk of progression, urate-lowering treatment with allopurinol did not slow the decline in eGFR as compared with placebo. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; CKD-FIX Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12611000791932.).

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

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

Clinical outcomes associated with drugs for obesity and overweight: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To compare the benefits and harms of drugs approved for weight management in adults with obesity or overweight. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of drugs approved for treating obesity and overweight. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL through 26 February 2023. Random-effects network meta-analysis was applied. RESULTS: A total of 168 trials (97 938 patients) were included. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death (69 trials, 59 037 participants). Naltrexone/bupropion was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality than placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.99]; low certainty evidence). All drugs were associated with greater weight loss at 12 months than placebo (33 trials, 37 616 participants), mainly semaglutide (mean difference [MD], -9.02 kg [95% CI: -10.42, -7.63]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -8.10 kg [95% CI: -10.14, -6.05]; high certainty); and with greater waist circumference reduction at 12 months than placebo (24 trials, 35 733 participants), mainly semaglutide (MD, -7.84 cm [95% CI: -9.34, -6.34]; moderate certainty) and phentermine/topiramate (MD, -6.20 cm [95% CI: -7.46, -4.94]; high certainty). Semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with lower or no difference in the odds of treatment withdrawal compared with all other drugs (87 trials, 70 860 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with obesity or overweight, semaglutide and phentermine/topiramate were associated with greater body weight loss and waist circumference reduction at 12 months than all other drugs, and lower or no significant difference in risks of withdrawal. There was no evidence that drugs approved for weight management had different associations with cardiovascular death.

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.

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.

'People that suffer or have been through it know the answers': stakeholders' perspectives on improving healthcare systems for end-of-life care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive and disabling lung condition with a high mortality. Our research has shown that health care for end-of-life COPD is poorly integrated. The aim of this study was to involve people with end-of-life COPD, their support people and health professionals in the design of healthcare services to help improve the delivery of care for advanced COPD, including informing system-level quality improvement. DESIGN: We conducted a focus group study involving stakeholders of healthcare services: people with end-of life COPD, support people, bereaved support people, and community- and hospital-based health care professionals. METHODS: We conducted qualitative analysis using deductive structural coding, and then inductive descriptive and pattern coding. Analyses were triangulated by investigators. The research positioned people with end-of-life COPD, their support people and health professionals as experts in healthcare services. Critical theory and Actor-Network theory informed the analysis. RESULTS: Seven focus groups involving 74 participants reported their experiences of end-of-life care for COPD. Five themes related to healthcare systems responses to improving care quality were identified: governance, system integration, resource design and development, standardisation of processes, and communication. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders provided multiple healthcare system-level responses to end-of-life care in COPD that could inform healthcare service design and clinical quality improvement.

Values, Perspectives, and Experiences of Indigenous Maori Regarding Kidney Transplantation: A Qualitative Interview Study in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: In Aotearoa/New Zealand, Indigenous Maori experience inequitable delivery of kidney transplantation despite disproportionately higher rates of kidney failure. This study describes Maori patients' and families' values, perspectives, and experiences related to kidney transplantation. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 40 in-depth interviews of 40 Maori: 8 who had received a transplant, 20 with chronic kidney disease (which included 10 on the deceased donor transplant list, 9 who were interested in transplantation and not currently waitlisted or who were ineligible for waitlisting, and 1 who was not interested in transplantation), 4 live-kidney donors, and 8 family members including 6 who had experiences with donor assessment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Data were analyzed inductively to generate themes and a conceptual framework. RESULTS: We identified 5 major themes: actively seeking a kidney transplant; evolving attitudes toward traditional values and practices; being confronted by interpersonal and systemic racism; poor information and communication; and challenged by social determinants of health. LIMITATIONS: Participants were recruited nationally through patient advocacy organizations and 1 regional kidney service. Potential participants unrelated to these groups or region could not be included. CONCLUSIONS: Maori participants were highly motivated to seek kidney transplantation and were inspired by positive experiences through donating and receiving a kidney. However, they faced barriers including social determinants, racism, and lack of information that impacted both direct experiences of transplantation and access to transplantation services.

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.

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

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

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease.

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

Exploring rural and remote patients' experiences of health services for kidney disease in Aotearoa New Zealand: An in-depth interview study.

AIMS: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) living in rural communities have increased risks of death, morbidity, hospitalization and poorer quality of life compared with people with CKD living in urban areas. This study explores the experiences and perceptions of rural and remote patients and families in relation to accessing health services for kidney disease in Aotearoa New Zealand. METHODS: We conducted an In-depth interview study. We purposively sampled adult patients with CKD and their caregivers who lived further than 100 km (62 miles) or more than 1 h drive from their nearest dialysis or transplant centre. Qualitative data were analyzed inductively to generate themes, subthemes and a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Of 35 participants, including 26 patients and nine caregivers, 51% were female, 71% travelled between 1 and 3 h to their nearest renal unit, and the remainder, between 3 and 6 h. We identified five themes and related subthemes: intense psychological impact of rurality; pressure of extended periods away from home; services not designed for rural and remote living; suffering from financial losses; and poor communication. CONCLUSION: Rural and remote patients with CKD and their caregivers face the added challenges of separation from family, social and community support and financial burden, which can have profound consequences on their psychological and physical well-being and that of their families.

Identifying Candidate Protein Markers of Acute Kidney Injury in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

One-quarter of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) experience acute kidney injury (AKI)-an abrupt reduction or loss of kidney function associated with increased long-term mortality. There is a critical need to identify early and real-time markers of AKI in ADHF; however, to date, no protein biomarkers have exhibited sufficient diagnostic or prognostic performance for widespread clinical uptake. We aimed to identify novel protein biomarkers of AKI associated with ADHF by quantifying changes in protein abundance in the kidneys that occur during ADHF development and recovery in an ovine model. Relative quantitative protein profiling was performed using sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra-mass spectrometry (SWATH-MS) in kidney cortices from control sheep (n = 5), sheep with established rapid-pacing-induced ADHF (n = 8), and sheep after ~4 weeks recovery from ADHF (n = 7). Of the 790 proteins quantified, we identified 17 candidate kidney injury markers in ADHF, 1 potential kidney marker of ADHF recovery, and 2 potential markers of long-term renal impairment (differential abundance between groups of 1.2-2.6-fold, adjusted p < 0.05). Among these 20 candidate protein markers of kidney injury were 6 candidates supported by existing evidence and 14 novel candidates not previously implicated in AKI. Proteins of differential abundance were enriched in pro-inflammatory signalling pathways: glycoprotein VI (activated during ADHF development; adjusted p < 0.01) and acute phase response (repressed during recovery from ADHF; adjusted p < 0.01). New biomarkers for the early detection of AKI in ADHF may help us to evaluate effective treatment strategies to prevent mortality and improve outcomes for patients.

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

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

Improve in-depth immunological risk assessment to optimize genetic-compatibility and clinical outcomes in child and adolescent recipients of parental donor kidney transplants: protocol for the INCEPTION study.

BACKGROUND: Parental donor kidney transplantation is the most common treatment option for children and adolescents with kidney failure. Emerging data from observational studies have reported improved short- and medium-term allograft outcomes in recipients of paternal compared to maternal donors. The INCEPTION study aims to identify potential differences in immunological compatibility between maternal and paternal donor kidneys and ascertain how this affects kidney allograft outcomes in children and adolescents with kidney failure. METHODS: This longitudinal observational study will recruit kidney transplant recipients aged ≤18 years who have received a parental donor kidney transplant across 4 countries (Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the Netherlands) between 1990 and 2020. High resolution human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing of both recipients and corresponding parental donors will be undertaken, to provide an in-depth assessment of immunological compatibility. The primary outcome is a composite of de novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibody (DSA), biopsy-proven acute rejection or allograft loss up to 60-months post-transplantation. Secondary outcomes are de novo DSA, biopsy-proven acute rejection, acute or chronic antibody mediated rejection or Chronic Allograft Damage Index (CADI) score of > 1 on allograft biopsy post-transplant, allograft function, proteinuria and allograft loss. Using principal component analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression modelling, we will determine the associations between defined sets of immunological and clinical parameters that may identify risk stratification for the primary and secondary outcome measures among young people accepting a parental donor kidney for transplantation. This study design will allow us to specifically investigate the relative importance of accepting a maternal compared to paternal donor, for families deciding on the best option for donation. DISCUSSION: The INCEPTION study findings will explore potentially differential immunological risks of maternal and paternal donor kidneys for transplantation among children and adolescents. Our study will provide the evidence base underpinning the selection of parental donor in order to achieve the best projected long-term kidney transplant and overall health outcomes for children and adolescents, a recognized vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The INCEPTION study has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, with the trial registration number of ACTRN12620000911998 (14th September 2020).

Reported sources of health inequities in Indigenous Peoples with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of quantitative studies.

BACKGROUND: To summarise the evidentiary basis related to causes of inequities in chronic kidney disease among Indigenous Peoples. METHODS: We conducted a Kaupapa Maori meta-synthesis evaluating the epidemiology of chronic kidney diseases in Indigenous Peoples. Systematic searching of MEDLINE, Google Scholar, OVID Nursing, CENTRAL and Embase was conducted to 31 December 2019. Eligible studies were quantitative analyses (case series, case-control, cross-sectional or cohort study) including the following Indigenous Peoples: Maori, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, Métis, First Nations Peoples of Canada, First Nations Peoples of the United States of America, Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Peoples of Taiwan. In the first cycle of coding, a descriptive synthesis of the study research aims, methods and outcomes was used to categorise findings inductively based on similarity in meaning using the David R Williams framework headings and subheadings. In the second cycle of analysis, the numbers of studies contributing to each category were summarised by frequency analysis. Completeness of reporting related to health research involving Indigenous Peoples was evaluated using the CONSIDER checklist. RESULTS: Four thousand three hundred seventy-two unique study reports were screened and 180 studies proved eligible. The key finding was that epidemiological investigators most frequently reported biological processes of chronic kidney disease, particularly type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease as the principal causes of inequities in the burden of chronic kidney disease for colonised Indigenous Peoples. Social and basic causes of unequal health including the influences of economic, political and legal structures on chronic kidney disease burden were infrequently reported or absent in existing literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review with meta-synthesis, a Kaupapa Maori methodology and the David R Williams framework was used to evaluate reported causes of health differences in chronic kidney disease in Indigenous Peoples. Current epidemiological practice is focussed on biological processes and surface causes of inequity, with limited reporting of the basic and social causes of disparities such as racism, economic and political/legal structures and socioeconomic status as sources of inequities.