Chronic kidney disease: the missing concept in the 2019 EULAR/ERA-EDTA recommendations for lupus nephritis.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is diagnosed when glomerular filtration rate (GFR) falls below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) reaches ≥30 mg/g, as these two thresholds indicate a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular mortality. CKD is classified as mild, moderate or severe, based on GFR and UACR values, and the latter two classifications convey a high or very high cardiovascular risk, respectively. Additionally, CKD can be diagnosed based on abnormalities detected by histology or imaging. Lupus nephritis (LN) is a cause of CKD. Despite the high cardiovascular mortality of patients with LN, neither albuminuria nor CKD are discussed in the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association recommendations for the management of LN or the more recent 2022 EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Indeed, the proteinuria target values discussed in the recommendations may be present in patients with severe CKD and a very high cardiovascular risk who may benefit from guidance detailed in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. We propose that the recommendations should move from a conceptual framework of LN as an entity separate from CKD to a framework in which LN is considered a cause of CKD and evidence generated from large CKD trials applies unless demonstrated otherwise.

Armed conflicts and kidney patients: a consensus statement from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the ERA.

During conflicts, people with kidney disease, either those remaining in the affected zones or those who are displaced, may be exposed to additional threats because of medical and logistical challenges. Acute kidney injury developing on the battlefield, in field hospitals or in higher-level hospital settings is characterized by poor outcomes. People with chronic kidney disease may experience treatment interruptions, contributing to worsening kidney function. Patients living on dialysis or with a functioning graft may experience limitations of dialysis possibilities or availability of immunosuppressive medications, increasing the risk of severe complications including death. When patients must flee, these threats are compounded by unhealthy and insecure conditions both during displacement and/or at their destination. Measures to attenuate these risks may only be partially effective. Local preparedness for overall and medical/kidney-related disaster response is essential. Due to limitations in supply, adjustments in dialysis frequency or dose, switching between hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis and changes in immunosuppressive regimens may be required. Telemedicine (if possible) may be useful to support inexperienced local physicians in managing medical and logistical challenges. Limited treatment possibilities during warfare may necessitate referral of patients to distant higher-level hospitals, once urgent care has been initiated. Preparation for disasters should occur ahead of time. Inclusion of disaster nephrology in medical and nursing curricula and training of patients, families and others on self-care and medical practice in austere settings may enhance awareness and preparedness, support best practices adapted to the demanding circumstances and prepare non-professionals to lend support.

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease: a clinical practice document by the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) board of the European Renal Association (ERA) and the Working Group Hypertension and the Kidney of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH).

Atherosclerotic renovascular disease (ARVD) is the most common type of renal artery stenosis. It represents a common health problem with clinical presentations relevant to many medical specialties and carries a high risk for future cardiovascular and renal events, as well as overall mortality. The available evidence regarding the management of ARVD is conflicting. Randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate superiority of percutaneous transluminal renal artery angioplasty (PTRA) with or without stenting in addition to standard medical therapy compared with medical therapy alone in lowering blood pressure levels or preventing adverse renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ARVD, but they carried several limitations and met important criticism. Observational studies showed that PTRA is associated with future cardiorenal benefits in patients presenting with high-risk ARVD phenotypes (i.e. flash pulmonary oedema, resistant hypertension or rapid loss of kidney function). This clinical practice document, prepared by experts from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) board of the European Renal Association (ERA) and from the Working Group on Hypertension and the Kidney of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH), summarizes current knowledge in epidemiology, pathophysiology and diagnostic assessment of ARVD and presents, following a systematic literature review, key evidence relevant to treatment, with an aim to support clinicians in decision making and everyday management of patients with this condition.

SGLT2i for evidence-based cardiorenal protection in diabetic and non-diabetic chronic kidney disease: a comprehensive review by EURECA-m and ERBP working groups of ERA.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health issue affecting an estimated 850 million people globally. The leading causes of CKD is diabetes and hypertension, which together account for >50% of patients with end-stage kidney disease. Progressive CKD leads to the requirement for kidney replacement therapy with transplantation or dialysis. In addition, CKD, is a risk factor for premature cardiovascular disease, particularly from structural heart disease and heart failure (HF). Until 2015, the mainstay of treatment to slow progression of both diabetic and many non-diabetic kidney diseases was blood pressure control and renin-angiotensin system inhibition; however, neither angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) nor angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in major trials in CKD. The emergence of cardiovascular and renal benefits observed with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) from clinical trials of their use as anti-hyperglycaemic agents has led to a revolution in cardiorenal protection for patients with diabetes. Subsequent clinical trials, notably DAPA-HF, EMPEROR, CREDENCE, DAPA-CKD and EMPA-KIDNEY have demonstrated their benefits in reducing risk of HF and progression to kidney failure in patients with HF and/or CKD. The cardiorenal benefits-on a relative scale-appear similar in patients with or without diabetes. Specialty societies' guidelines are continually adapting as trial data emerges to support increasingly wide use of SGLT2i. This consensus paper from EURECA-m and ERBP highlights the latest evidence and summarizes the guidelines for use of SGLT2i for cardiorenal protection focusing on benefits observed relevant to people with CKD.

Distribution, preparedness and management of Ukrainian adult refugees on dialysis-an international survey by the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the European Renal Association.

BACKGROUND: Due to the Russian-Ukrainian war, some of the about 10 000 adults requiring dialysis in Ukraine fled their country to continue dialysis abroad. To better understand the needs of conflict-affected dialysis patients, the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the European Renal Association conducted a survey on distribution, preparedness and management of adults requiring dialysis who were displaced due to the war. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was sent via National Nephrology Societies across Europe and disseminated to their dialysis centers. Fresenius Medical Care shared a set of aggregated data. RESULTS: Data were received on 602 patients dialyzed in 24 countries. Most patients were dialyzed in Poland (45.0%), followed by Slovakia (18.1%), Czech Republic (7.8%) and Romania (6.3%). The interval between last dialysis and the first in the reporting center was 3.1 ± 1.6 days, but was ≥4 days in 28.1% of patients. Mean age was 48.1 ± 13.4 years, 43.5% were females. Medical records were carried by 63.9% of patients, 63.3% carried a list of medications, 60.4% carried the medications themselves and 44.0% carried their dialysis prescription, with 26.1% carrying all of these items and 16.1% carrying none. Upon presentation outside Ukraine, 33.9% of patients needed hospitalization. Dialysis therapy was not continued in the reporting center by 28.2% of patients until the end of the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: We received information about approximately 6% of Ukrainian dialysis patients, who had fled their country by the end of August 2022. A substantial proportion were temporarily underdialyzed, carried incomplete medical information and needed hospitalization. The results of our survey may help to inform policies and targeted interventions to respond to the special needs of this vulnerable population during wars and other disasters in the future.

Lessons learned during the war in Ukraine: a report from the Renal Disaster Relief Task Force of the ERA.

People living with kidney disease are among the most vulnerable at times of natural or man-made disasters. In addition to their unpredictable course, armed conflicts impose a major threat given the disruption of infrastructure, sanitation and access to food, water and medical care. The ongoing war in Ukraine has once more demonstrated the importance of preparedness, organization, coordination and solidarity during disasters. People living with kidney disease face serious challenges given their dependence on life-sustaining treatment, irrespective of whether they remain in the war zone or are displaced internally or externally. This especially affects those requiring kidney replacement therapy, dialysis or transplantation, but also patients with other kidney diseases and the medical staff who care for them. Soon after the war started, the European Renal Association assigned a Renal Disaster Relief Task Force dedicated to support the people living with kidney disease and the nephrology community in Ukraine. This report summarizes the major challenges faced, actions taken and lessons learned by this task force. We anticipate that the experience will help to increase preparedness and mitigate the devastating effects of armed conflicts on the kidney community in the future and propose to establish an international collaboration to extend this effort to other parts of the world facing similar challenges.

Long-term cardio-vascular risk assessment in chronic kidney disease and kidney transplanted patients following SARS-COV-2 disease: protocol for multi-center observational match controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) produced a pandemic since March 2020 by affecting more than 243 million people with more than 5 million deaths globally. SARS-CoV-2 infection is produced by binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme, which among other sites is highly expressed in the endothelial cells of the blood vessels, pericytes and the heart, as well as in renal podocytes and proximal tubular epithelial cells. SARS-CoV-2 and cardiovascular disease (CVD) are interconnected by risk factors association with an increased incidence of the disease and by determining de novo cardiac complications. At the same time, COVID-19 disease can lead to acute kidney injury directly, or due to sepsis, multi-organ failure and shock. Therefore, the pre-existence of both CVD and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is linked with a higher risk of severe disease and worse prognosis. METHODS: The main aim of this study is to assess the CV risk in a CKD (stage 3 to 5), dialysis and kidney transplanted population, following SARS-CoV-2 infection, with focus on the endothelial dysfunction as compared to a control group of matched patients. By using clinical evaluation, flow-mediated dilatation, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, intima-media thickness, echocardiographic parameters, lung ultrasound, bioimpedance spectroscopy and a series of novel biomarkers, the investigators will determine the long-term impact of this disease on CV and renal outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study will address the challenges and implications in long-term CV sequeale of COVID-19 and focus on a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and possible therapeutic options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Patient enrolment in the trial started in January 2021 and is expected to finish at the end of 2022. The study can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov database with NCT05125913 identifier. Registered on 18 November 2021 - Retrospectively registered.

Management of obesity in kidney transplant candidates and recipients: A clinical practice guideline by the DESCARTES Working Group of ERA.

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented.

Long-term risks after kidney donation: how do we inform potential donors? A survey from DESCARTES and EKITA transplantation working groups.

BACKGROUND: Publications from the last decade have increased knowledge regarding long-term risks after kidney donation. We wanted to perform a survey to assess how transplant professionals in Europe inform potential kidney donors regarding long-term risks. The objectives of the survey were to determine how they inform donors and to what extent, and to evaluate the degree of variation. METHODS: All transplant professionals involved in the evaluation process were considered eligible, regardless of the type of profession. The survey was dispatched as a link to a web-based survey. The subjects included questions on demographics, the information policy of the respondent and the use of risk calculators, including the difference of relative and absolute risks and how the respondents themselves understood these risks. RESULTS: The main finding was a large variation in how often different long-term risks were discussed with the potential donors, i.e. from always to never. Eighty percent of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of end-stage renal disease, while 56% of respondents stated that they always discuss the risk of preeclampsia. Twenty percent of respondents answered correctly regarding the relationship between absolute and relative risks for rare outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of written information and checklists should be encouraged. This may improve standardization regarding the information provided to potential living kidney donors in Europe. There is a need for information and education among European transplant professionals regarding long-term risks after kidney donation and how to interpret and present these risks.

Different aspects of frailty and COVID-19: points to consider in the current pandemic and future ones.

BACKGROUND: Older adults at a higher risk of adverse outcomes and mortality if they get infected with Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2). These undesired outcomes are because ageing is associated with other conditions like multimorbidity, frailty and disability. This paper describes the impact of frailty on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management and outcomes. We also try to point out the role of inflamm-ageing, immunosenescence and reduced microbiota diversity in developing a severe form of COVID-19 and a different response to COVID-19 vaccination among older frail adults. Additionally, we attempt to highlight the impact of frailty on intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes, and hence, the rationale behind using frailty as an exclusion criterion for critical care admission. Similarly, the importance of using a time-saving, validated, sensitive, and user-friendly tool for frailty screening in an acute setting as COVID-19 triage. We performed a narrative review. Publications from 1990 to March 2021 were identified by searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL and SCOPUS. Based on this search, we have found that in older frail adults, many mechanisms contribute to the severity of COVID-19, particularly cytokine storm; those mechanisms include lower immunological capacity and status of ongoing chronic inflammation and reduced gut microbiota diversity. Higher degrees of frailty were associated with poor outcomes and higher mortality rates during and after ICU admission. Also, the response to COVID-19 vaccination among frail older adults might differ from the general population regarding effectiveness and side effects. Researches also had shown that there are many tools for identifying frailty in an acute setting that could be used in COVID-19 triage, and before ICU admission, the clinical frailty scale (CFS) was the most recommended tool. CONCLUSION: Older frail adults have a pre-existing immunopathological base that puts them at a higher risk of undesired outcomes and mortality due to COVID-19 and poor response to COVID-19 vaccination. Also, their admission in ICU should depend on their degree of frailty rather than their chronological age, which is better to be screened using the CFS.

Novel percutaneous interventional therapies in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: an integrative review.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common disorder generating high mortality and important morbidity prevalence, with a very limited medical treatment available. Studies have shown that the pathophysiological hallmark of this condition is an elevated left intra-atrial pressure (LAP), exertional dyspnea being its clinical manifestation. The increasing pressure from LA is not based on volume overload (such as in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) but on a diastolic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction combined with an inter-atrial dyssynchrony mimicking a pseudo-pacemaker syndrome. In this review, we aimed to summarize current knowledge and discuss future directions of the newest interventional percutaneous therapies of HFpEF. Novel interventional approaches developed to counter these mechanisms are as follows: LA decompression (inter-atrial shunt devices), enhancement of LV compliance (LV expanders), and inter-atrial resynchronization therapy (LA permanent pacing). To date, inter-atrial shunt devices (IASD) are the most studied, being the only devices currently tested in a phase 3 trial. Recent data showed that IASD are feasible, safe, and have a short-term clinical benefit in HFpEF patients. LV expanders and LA pacing therapy present with a smaller clinical benefit compared with IASD, but they are safe, without any major adverse outcomes currently noted. With further development and improvement of these mechanism-specific devices, it will be interesting to determine in the future whether a complex intervention of multiple HFpEF device implantation will be safe and have further benefits in HFpEF patients.

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.

Transcriptomics in kidney biopsy is an untapped resource for precision therapy in nephrology: a systematic review.

Background: The diagnosis of glomerular diseases is based on the evaluation of histological lesions in renal tissue by means of light and electronic microscopy, and immunofluorescence technique. Frozen and archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded kidney biopsies represent a stored resource for high-throughput technologies. Transcriptomics makes it possible to study the whole gene-expression profile of cells and tissues in a specific period and/or condition. The results, whether considered alone or integrated with other omics data, could help to improve existing knowledge about the pathogenetic mechanisms of glomerulopathies. Methods: This review describes the molecular analysis of histological lesions obtained by transcriptomics in glomerular diseases, such as minimal change disease, focal and segmental glomerular sclerosis, IgA nephropathy, lupus nephritis and diabetic nephropathy. Results: Of 716 articles obtained through database searches, 19 relevant articles were considered for the systematic review. Transcriptomics in kidney biopsy from patients with glomerular diseases have generated new insights on a few promising genes, illustrated in each disease section, which may be considered important targets for the care of these diseases. Conclusions: Transcriptomics is an untapped resource for precision nephrology. Moreover, the integration of transcriptomics and systems pharmacology could predict the best drug combination to revert a pathological condition by targeting disease-specific molecular networks.

Is Kt/V useful in elderly dialysis patients? Pro and Con arguments.

Current guidelines for dialysis specify a minimum Kt/V. For haemodialysis (HD) patients, minimum treatment time and frequency is also specified. The guidelines allow for modification to take account of renal function. The guidelines are not specifically aimed at the elderly and may not be appropriate for all patients in this group. Increasing age is accompanied by physiological and pathological changes that may modify the patient's response to uraemia and dialysis. Frailty and multi-morbidity are likely, but to a variable extent. Elderly patients could be more susceptible to the effects of uraemia and require a higher dose of dialysis. Conversely, the generation rate of uraemic toxins is lower in elderly patients, potentially reducing the need for dialysis. In the elderly, quality of life may be more adversely affected by multimorbidity than uraemic symptoms, thus the dose of dialysis may be less relevant. Higher doses of dialysis may be more difficult to achieve in the elderly and may be less well tolerated. We conclude that the prescription of dialysis in the elderly should be individualized, taking multiple factors into account. An individualized Kt/V may be useful in controlling dialysis dose and detecting problems in delivery. However, achievement of a specified Kt/V may not result in any benefit to an elderly patient and could be counterproductive.

Effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in adults with diabetes mellitus and advanced chronic kidney disease not on dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The presumed superiority of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)-blocking agents over other antihypertensive agents in patients with diabetes to delay development of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) has recently been challenged. In addition, there is ongoing uncertainty whether RAAS-blocking agents reduce mortality and/or delay ESKD in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5. In this subgroup, there might be an expedited need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) when RAAS-blocking agents are used. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6-months duration in adult patients with diabetes who also have non-dialysis CKD stages 3-5. RCTs comparing single RAAS-blocking agents to placebo or alternative antihypertensive agents were included. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, progression of renal function, ESKD and adverse events. A total of nine trials (n = 9797 participants with CKD stages 3-5) fit our inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the RAAS group and control group regarding all-cause mortality {relative risk [RR] = 0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.10]}, cardiovascular mortality [RR = 1.03 (95% CI 0.75-1.41)] and adverse events [RR = 1.05 (95% CI 0.89-1.25)]. There was a trend for a favourable effect for non-fatal cardiovascular events [RR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00)] and a lower risk of the composite endpoint need for RRT/doubling of serum creatinine [RR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.92)] in the RAAS-blocking agents group versus the control group. We found evidence that in patients with diabetes mellitus and CKD stages 3-5, treatment with RAAS-blocking agents did not result in a clear survival advantage. The effect on renal outcomes did depend on the selected outcome measure. However, we did not find evidence that the use of RAAS-blocking agents expedited the need for RRT in patients with CKD stages 3-5.

Considerations on glycaemic control in older and/or frail individuals with diabetes and advanced kidney disease.

The increasing prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes over the last decade has resulted in increasing numbers of frail older patients with a combination of these conditions. Current treatment guidelines may not necessarily be relevant for such patients, who are mostly excluded from the trials upon which these recommendations are based. There is a paucity of data upon which to base the management of older patients with CKD. Nearly all current guidelines recommend less-tight glycaemic control for the older population, citing the lack of proven medium-term benefits and concerns about the high short-term risk of hypoglycaemia. However, reports from large landmark trials have shown potential benefits for both microvascular and macrovascular complications, though the relevance of these findings to this specific population is uncertain. The trials have also highlighted potential alternative explanations for the hazards of intensive glycaemic control. These include depression, low endogenous insulin reserve, low body mass index and side effects of the medication. Over the last few years, newer classes of hypoglycaemic drugs with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia have emerged. This article aims to present a balanced view of advantages and disadvantages of intense glycaemic control in this group of patients, which we hope will help the clinician and patient to come to an individualized management approach.

Dialysis modality choice in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease: a narrative review of the available evidence.

The number of elderly patients on maintenance dialysis has rapidly increased in the past few decades, particularly in developed countries, imposing a growing burden on dialysis centres. Hence, many nephrologists and healthcare authorities feel that greater emphasis should be placed on the promotion of home dialysis therapies such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis (HD). There is currently no general consensus as to the best dialysis modality for elderly patients with end-stage renal disease. In-centre HD is predominant in most countries, although it is widely recognized that PD has several advantages over HD, including the lack of need for vascular access, continuous slow ultrafiltration, less interference with patients' lifestyle and lower costs. Comparisons of outcomes between elderly patients on PD and HD rely on observational studies, as randomized controlled trials are lacking. The results of these studies are variable. However, most of them suggest that survival rates are largely similar between the two modalities, except for elderly patients with diabetes and/or beyond 1-3 years from dialysis initiation, in which cases HD appears to be superior. An equally important aspect to consider when choosing dialysis modality, particularly in this age group, is the quality of life, and in this regard most studies found no significant differences between PD and HD. In these circumstances, we believe that dialysis modality selection should be guided by patient's preference, based on comprehensive and unbiased information. A multidisciplinary team should review elderly patients starting on dialysis, aiming to identify possible barriers to PD and home HD, including physical, visual, cognitive, psychological and social problems, and to overcome such barriers by adequate care, education, psychological counselling and dialysis assistance.

Why creating standardized core outcome sets for chronic kidney disease will improve clinical practice.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and cost. However, insufficient high-quality trial data are available to answer many relevant clinical questions in this field. In addition, a wide range of variable outcomes are used in studies, and often they are incompletely reported. Furthermore, there is a lack of patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life, pain, need for dialysis or costs. Common problems with outcome reporting are as follows: choosing the wrong domains to measure; within domains, choosing the wrong measures (invalid surrogates, composite, non-patient relevant); within measures, choosing the wrong/variable metrics; and within metrics, choosing variable presentation methods. With this article, we aim to underline why standardized outcome reporting is key to achieving evidence-based guidance and improving clinical care for patients; highlight the frameworks available for achieving core outcome sets; and starting from these frameworks, we propose steps needed to develop a core outcome set in the field of CKD. We hope that standardized core outcome sets for nephrology will lead to the most important outcome of guideline production, improving outcomes for our patients.

Clinical Practice Guideline on management of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b or higher (eGFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2): a summary document from the European Renal Best Practice Group.

The population of patients with moderate and severe CKD is growing. Frail and older patients comprise an increasing proportion. Many studies still exclude this group, so the evidence base is limited. In 2013 the advisory board of ERBP initiated, in collaboration with European Union of Geriatric Medicine Societies (EUGMS), the development of a guideline on the management of older patients with CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR >45 mL/min/1.73 m2). The full guideline has recently been published and is freely available online and on the website of ERBP (www.european-renal-best-practice.org). This paper summarises main recommendations of the guideline and their underlying rationales.

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.