The efficacy of fluconazole for anti-fungal prophylaxis in peritoneal dialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis / Eficacia de fluconazol para profilaxis antifúngica en los pacientes de diálisis peritoneal: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis

Introduction and objectives: The efficacy of fluconazole as a prophylactic strategy in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on peritoneal dialysis (PD) with prior antibiotic exposure is controversial in the current literature. This study aimed to compare a strategy of fluconazole prophylaxis versus no-prophylaxis for patients in PD on antibiotics for previous episodes of peritonitis. Materials and methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluconazole prophylaxis with no prophylaxis for PD-related peritonitis. The search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central in January 23, 2023. The outcome of interest was the occurrence of fungal peritonitis (FP). Results: We included six studies (1 RCT, 5 observational) with 4515 occurrences of peritonitis, of which 1098 (24.8%) received fluconazole prophylaxis in variable doses, whereas 3417 (75.6%) did not receive prophylaxis during peritonitis episodes. Overall, fluconazole prophylaxis was associated with a lower incidence of FP (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.12–0.41; p<0.001; I2=0%). Subgroup analysis of studies that administered daily doses of fluconazole also demonstrated a reduced incidence of FP in patients who received antifungal prophylaxis (OR 0.31; CI 0.14–0.69; p=0.004; I2=0%). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis of 4515 episodes of PD-related peritonitis, prophylaxis with fluconazole significantly reduced episodes of FP as compared with no antifungal prophylaxis.(AU)

Introducción y objetivos: La eficacia de fluconazol como estrategia profiláctica en los pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica (ERC) sometidos a diálisis peritoneal (DP) con exposición antibiótica previa es controvertida en la literatura actual. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la estrategia de profilaxis con fluconazol frente a no profilaxis para los pacientes de DP con régimen antibiótico por episodios previos de peritonitis. Materiales y métodos: Realizamos una revisión sistemática y metaanálisis de estudios observacionales y ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA), comparando la profilaxis con fluconazol y la no profilaxis para la peritonitis relacionada con DP. Dicha búsqueda se realizó en PubMed, EMBASE y Cochrane Central el 23 de enero de 2023. El resultado de interés fue la aparición de peritonitis fúngica (PF). Resultados: Incluimos seis estudios (1 ECA, 5 observacionales) con 4.515 episodios de peritonitis, de los cuales 1.098 (24,8%) recibieron profilaxis de fluconazol en dosis variables, mientras que 3.417 (75,6%) no recibieron profilaxis durante los episodios de peritonitis. En general, la profilaxis de fluconazol estuvo asociada a una menor incidencia de PF (OR: 0,22; IC 95%: 0,12-0,41; p<0,001; I2=0%). El análisis de subgrupo de los estudios que administraron dosis diarias de fluconazol también demostró una incidencia reducida de PF en los pacientes que recibieron profilaxis antifúngica (OR: 0,31; IC 95%: 0,14-0,69; p=0,004, I2=0%). Conclusiones: En este metaanálisis de 4.515 episodios de peritonitis relacionada con DP, la profilaxis con fluconazol redujo significativamente los episodios de PF, en comparación con la no profilaxis antifúngica.(AU)

Association of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors with Cardiovascular Events and Death in Dialysis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anemia is a common finding among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, especially those on dialysis. The recent introduction of hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) has raised some concerns about the cardiovascular and thrombotic complications of this class of drugs. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety of HIF-PHIs in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) versus standard therapy with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). METHODS: Databases were searched on April 2022. Studies that reported incidence of all-cause mortality; major cardiovascular adverse events (MACEs); myocardial infarction (MI); stroke and thrombotic events in the use of HIF-PHIs or ESA on ESKD patients in hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis were evaluated. Data were extracted from published reports, and quality assessment was performed per Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: 12,821 patients from ten randomized controlled trials were included in this study. Most patients (83%) were on hemodialysis. 6,461 (50.3%) were using HIF-PHIs, and 6,360 (49.6%) were in the ESA group. The pooled estimated incidence of all-cause mortality was 769 in the HIF-PHIs group (relative-risk ratios (RR): 1.04; confidence interval (CI): 0.95-1.14; p = 0.52; I2 = 0%). There was no difference in the groups regarding the outcomes of MACE in the analysis of the three studies that reported this outcome (RR: 0.95; CI: 0.87-1.04; p = 0.69; I2 = 0%). In addition, there was no statistical difference among the outcomes of MI, stroke, or thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ESKD on dialysis, the use of HIF-PHIs was non-inferior regarding the safety outcomes when compared to standard of care therapy.