Vitamin K supplementation impact in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Vitamin K supplementation has been considered recently as a potential treatment for addressing vascular calcification in chronic kidney disease patients. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the impact of vitamin K supplementation in dialysis patients. Electronic databases were searched for clinical randomized trials among patients treated with vitamin K. Random effects models were performed and risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tools and the search was conducted until 15 of September 2023. Eleven trials comprising 830 patients (both adult and pediatric, mainly hemodialysis) compared vitamin K with different controls: lower doses of vitamin K, standard care or placebo. Vitamin K supplementation had no effect on mortality. Vitamin K administration improved vitamin K levels and led to lower levels of dp-uc-MGP and moderately increased calcium levels [0.18 (0.04-0.32)]. Vitamin K1 proved more potency in reducing dp-uc-MGP [SMD -1.64 (-2.05, -1.23) vs. -0.56 (-0.82, -0.31)] and also raised serum vitamin K levels in comparison with vitamin K2 [5.69 (3.43, 7.94) vs. 2.25 (-2.36, 6.87)]. While it did not have a proved benefit in changing calcification scores [-0.14 (-0.37 ± 0.09)], vitamin K proved to be a safe product. There was some concern with bias. Vitamin K supplementation has no impact on mortality and did not show significant benefit in reversing calcification scores. Vitamin K1 improved vitamin K deposits and lowered dp-uc-MGP, which is a calcification biomarker more than vitamin K2. As it proved to be a safe product, additional randomized well-powered studies with improved treatment regimens are needed to establish the true impact of vitamin K in dialysis patients.

A Policy Call to Address Rare Kidney Disease in Health Care Plans.

Despite a large number of people globally being affected by rare kidney diseases, research support and health care policy programs usually focus on the management of the broad spectrum of CKD without particular attention to rare causes that would require a targeted approach for proper cure. Hence, specific curative approaches for rare kidney diseases are scarce, and these diseases are not treated optimally, with implications on the patients' health and quality of life, on the cost for the health care system, and society. There is therefore a need for rare kidney diseases and their mechanisms to receive the appropriate scientific, political, and policy attention to develop specific corrective approaches. A wide range of policies are required to address the various challenges that target care for rare kidney diseases, including the need to increase awareness, improve and accelerate diagnosis, support and implement therapeutic advances, and inform the management of the diseases. In this article, we provide specific policy recommendations to address the challenges hindering the provision of targeted care for rare kidney diseases, focusing on awareness and prioritization, diagnosis, management, and therapeutic innovation. In combination, the recommendations provide a holistic approach aiming for all aspects of rare kidney disease care to improve health outcomes, reduce the economic effect, and deliver benefits to society. Greater commitment from all the key stakeholders is now needed, and a central role should be assigned to patients with rare kidney disease to partner in the design and implementation of potential solutions.

Religiosity, spirituality and quality of life of dialysis patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients often report a combination of disturbing physical symptoms and psychological distress which result in significantly reduced quality of life (QoL). Coping with a chronic disease is a complex matter involving also the family and a multi-disciplinary team. Recently, observational studies suggested that spirituality (S) and religiosity (R) are two important determinants in coping with a chronic/terminal disease. Both concepts were studied in various settings, involving ESRD and QoL. This systematic review aims to synthesize all instruments used to assess R/S, to examine the strategies evaluating QoL of dialysis patients and to analyse their correlations. METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed and SCOPUS (between Jan 1980-Dec 2018, PROSPERO number CRD42019116837). Eligible studies included patients on dialysis therapy, religiously/spiritually assessed and contained QoL evaluation. RESULTS: Of the initial 311 studies, 261 papers were excluded. Consequently, 50 papers with a total 9265 patients were available for inclusion. From a list of 177 R/S scales available worldwide, we identified 24 tools. We organized all QoL parameters into 10 classes. In all studies, R/S variables were positively correlated with at least one QoL variable. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we synthesized the studies involving R/S assessment in dialysis patients and their benefit on QoL. R/S has a positive impact on most QoL parameters in 5D-CKD. We suggest that nephrology guidelines on palliative care and/or elderly should include specific recommendations on R/S support and opportunities for integrated specific therapies.

Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: The anaemia seen in chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be exacerbated by iron deficiency. Iron can be provided through different routes, with advantages and drawbacks of each route. It remains unclear whether the potential harms and additional costs of intravenous (IV) compared with oral iron are justified. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of IV iron supplementation compared with oral iron for anaemia in adults and children with CKD, including participants on dialysis, with kidney transplants and CKD not requiring dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 December 2018 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 in which IV and oral routes of iron administration were compared in adults and children with CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) was used or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta-regression were performed to investigate between study differences. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 studies (3852 participants), 11 of which were added in this update. A low risk of bias was attributed to 20 (51%) studies for sequence generation, 14 (36%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for attrition bias and 20 (51%) for selective outcome reporting. All studies were at a high risk of performance bias. However, all studies were considered at low risk of detection bias because the primary outcome in all studies was laboratory-based and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding.There is insufficient evidence to suggest that IV iron compared with oral iron makes any difference to death (all causes) (11 studies, 1952 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64, 1.94) (absolute effect: 33 participants per 1000 with IV iron versus 31 per 1000 with oral iron), the number of participants needing to start dialysis (4 studies, 743 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41, 1.61) or the number needing blood transfusions (5 studies, 774 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55, 1.34) (absolute effect: 87 per 1,000 with IV iron versus 101 per 1,000 with oral iron). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether IV iron compared with oral iron reduces cardiovascular death because the certainty of this evidence was very low (3 studies, 206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.18). Quality of life was reported in five studies with four reporting no difference between treatment groups and one reporting improvement in participants treated with IV iron.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the numbers of participants, who experience allergic reactions or hypotension (15 studies, 2607 participants: RR 3.56, 95% CI 1.88 to 6.74) (absolute harm: 24 per 1000 with IV iron versus 7 per 1000) but may reduce the number of participants with all gastrointestinal adverse effects (14 studies, 1986 participants: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.66) (absolute benefit: 150 per 1000 with IV iron versus 319 per 1000). These analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence.IV iron compared with oral iron may increase the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin (13 studies, 2206 participants: RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.04) (absolute benefit: 542 participants per 1,000 with IV iron versus 317 per 1000 with oral iron), increased haemoglobin (31 studies, 3373 participants: MD 0.72 g/dL, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.05); ferritin (33 studies, 3389 participants: MD 224.84 µg/L, 95% CI 165.85 to 283.83) and transferrin saturation (27 studies, 3089 participants: MD 7.69%, 95% CI 5.10 to 10.28), and may reduce the dose required of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) (11 studies, 522 participants: SMD -0.72, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.31) while making little or no difference to glomerular filtration rate (8 studies, 1052 participants: 0.83 mL/min, 95% CI -0.79 to 2.44). All analyses were assessed as having low certainty evidence. There were moderate to high degrees of heterogeneity in these analyses but in meta-regression, definite reasons for this could not be determined. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies provide low certainty evidence that IV iron compared with oral iron increases haemoglobin, ferritin and transferrin levels in CKD participants, increases the number of participants who achieve target haemoglobin and reduces ESA requirements. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether IV iron compared with oral iron influences death (all causes), cardiovascular death and quality of life though most studies reported only short periods of follow-up. Adverse effects were reported in only 50% of included studies. We therefore suggest that further studies that focus on patient-centred outcomes with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine if the use of IV iron is justified on the basis of reductions in ESA dose and cost, improvements in patient quality of life, and with few serious adverse effects.

Magnesium-based interventions for normal kidney function and chronic kidney disease.

Magnesium (Mg) is one of the most important cations in the body, playing an essential role in biological systems as co-factor for more than 300 essential enzymatic reactions. In the general population, low levels of Mg are associated with a high risk of cardio-vascular disease (CVD). Despite the accumulating literature data, the effect of Mg administration on mortality in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients has never been investigated as a primary end-point. We conducted a systematic search of studies assessing the benefits and harms of Mg in CKD (stages 1 to 5 and 5D), and considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating Mg-based interventions in CKD. As a phosphate binder, Mg salts offer a plausible opportunity for doubly favorable effects via reduction of intestinal phosphate absorption and addition of potentially beneficial effects via increasing circulating Mg levels. Mg supplementation might have a favorable effect on vascular calcification, although evidence for this is very slight. Although longitudinal data describe an association between low serum Mg levels and increased total and cardiovascular mortality, in patients with CKD, the existing RCTs reporting the effect of Mg supplementation on mortality failed to demonstrate any favorable effect. As with many other variables that influence hard end-points in nephrology, the role of Mg in CKD patients needs to be investigated in more depth. Additional research that is well-designed and directly targeting the role of Mg is needed as a consequence of limited existing evidence.

Silymarin in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and nephropathy-now the leading cause of end-stage renal disease and dialysis in Europe and the United States. Inflammation and oxidative stress play a pivotal role in the development of diabetic complications. Silymarin, an herbal drug with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, may improve glycemic control and prevent the progression of the complications. In a systematic review and meta-analysis including five randomized controlled trials and 270 patients, routine silymarin administration determines a significant reduction in fasting blood glucose levels (-26.86 mg/dL; 95% CI -35.42-18.30) and HbA1c levels (-1.07; 95% CI -1.73-0.40) and has no effect on lipid profile. Benefits for silymarin on proteinuria and CKD progressions are reported in only one small study and are uncertain. However, being aware of the low quality of the available evidence and elevated heterogeneity of these studies, no recommendation can be made and further studies are needed.

Should patients with CKD stage 5D and biochemical evidence of secondary hyperparathyroidism be prescribed calcimimetic therapy? An ERA-EDTA position statement.

This paper reflects the position of the CKD-MBD workgroup, an official working group of ERA-EDTA and of the ERBP advisory board, the official guideline-producing body of ERA-EDTA, on the topic of the use of calcimimetics in patients with CKD stage 5D, as based on two recent meta-analysis.

Calcimimetics for secondary hyperparathyroidism in chronic kidney disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Calcimimetic agents lower abnormal serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels in people who have chronic kidney disease (CKD), but the benefits and harms on patient-level outcomes are uncertain. Since this review was first published in 2006 showing that evidence for calcimimetics was largely restricted to biochemical outcomes, additional studies have been conducted. This is an update of a review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cinacalcet on patient-level outcomes in adults with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and conference proceedings were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any calcimimetic against placebo or another agent in adults with CKD (persistent albuminuria > 30 mg/g with or without reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (below 60 mL/min/1.73 m²)). We updated searches to 7 February 2013 including the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to complete this update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of a calcimimetic administered to patients with CKD for the treatment of elevated serum PTH levels. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on all relevant patient-centred and surrogate outcomes. We summarised treatment estimates using random effects and expressed treatment effects as a risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies (7446 participants) compared cinacalcet in addition to standard therapy with no treatment or placebo plus standard therapy. In adults with GFR category G5 (GFR below 15 mL/min/1.73 m²) treated with dialysis, routine cinacalcet treatment had little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.05), imprecise effects on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.87), and prevented surgical parathyroidectomy (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59) and hypercalcaemia (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.97), but increased hypocalcaemia (RR 6.98, 95% CI 5.10 to 9.53), nausea (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.81) and vomiting (RR 1.97, 95% CI 95% CI 1.73 to 2.24). Cinacalcet decreased serum PTH (MD -281.39 pg/mL, 95% CI -325.84 to -234.94) and calcium (MD -0.87 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.77) levels, but had little or no effect on serum phosphorous levels (MD -0.23 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.12).Data were sparse for adults with GFR categories G3a to G4 (GFR 15 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and kidney transplant recipients.Overall, based on GRADE criteria, evidence for cinacalcet in adults with GFR category G5 treated with dialysis (mortality, parathyroidectomy, hypocalcaemia, and nausea) is of high or moderate quality. High quality evidence suggests "further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of treatment effect" and moderate quality evidence is "further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate". Information for adults with less severe CKD GFR category G3a to G4 is of low or very low quality. This means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Routine cinacalcet therapy reduced the need for parathyroidectomy in adults treated with dialysis and elevated PTH levels but does not improve all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Cinacalcet increases risks of nausea, vomiting and hypocalcaemia, suggesting harms may outweigh benefits in this population.