BackgroundData from the PEXIVAS trial challenged the role of plasma exchange (PLEX) in ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAV). We aimed to describe kidney biopsy from patients with AAV treated with PLEX, evaluate whether histopathologic findings could predict kidney function, and identify which patients would most benefit from PLEX.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, retrospective study on 188 patients with AAV and AKI treated with PLEX and 237 not treated with PLEX. The primary outcome was mortality or KRT at 12 months (M12).ResultsNo significant benefit of PLEX for the primary outcome was found. To identify patients benefitting from PLEX, we developed a model predicting the average treatment effect of PLEX for an individual depending on covariables. Using the prediction model, 223 patients had a better predicted outcome with PLEX than without PLEX, and 177 of them had >5% increased predicted probability with PLEX compared with without PLEX of being alive and free from KRT at M12, which defined the PLEX-recommended group. Risk difference for death or KRT at M12 was significantly lower with PLEX in the PLEX-recommended group (−15.9%; 95% CI, −29.4 to −2.5) compared with the PLEX not recommended group (−4.8%; 95% CI, 14.9 to 5.3). Microscopic polyangiitis, MPO-ANCA, higher serum creatinine, crescentic and sclerotic classes, and higher Brix score were more frequent in the PLEX-recommended group. An easy to use score identified patients who would benefit from PLEX. The average treatment effect of PLEX for those with recommended treatment corresponded to an absolute risk reduction for death or KRT at M12 of 24.6%.ConclusionsPLEX was not associated with a better primary outcome in the whole study population, but we identified a subset of patients who could benefit from PLEX. However, these findings must be validated before utilized in clinical decision making.
Background Researchers worldwide are actively engaging in research activities to search for preventive and therapeutic interventions against COVID-19. Our aim was to describe the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of timing related to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and research question evaluated. Method We performed a living mapping of RCTs registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We systematically search the platform every week for all RCTs evaluating preventive interventions and treatments for COVID-19 and created a publicly available interactive mapping tool at https://covid-nma.com to visualize all trials registered. Results By August 12, 2020, 1,568 trials for COVID-19 were registered worldwide. Overall, the median ([Q1-Q3]; range) delay between the first case recorded in each country and the first RCT registered was 47 days ([33-67]; 15-163). For the 9 countries with the highest number of trials registered, most trials were registered after the peak of the epidemic (from 100% trials in Italy to 38% in the United States). Most trials evaluated treatments (1,333 trials; 85%); only 223 (14%) evaluated preventive strategies and 12 post-acute period intervention. A total of 254 trials were planned to assess different regimens of hydroxychloroquine with an expected sample size of 110,883 patients. Conclusion This living mapping analysis showed that COVID-19 trials have relatively small sample size with certain redundancy in research questions. Most trials were registered when the first peak of the pandemic have passed.
Background Intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) are the two main RRT modalities in patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). Meta-analyses conducted more than 10 years ago did not show survival difference between these two modalities. As the quality of RRT delivery has improved since then, we aimed to reassess whether the choice of IHD or CRRT as first modality affects survival of patients with severe AKI. Methods This is a secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials (AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU) that compared an early RRT initiation strategy with a delayed one. We included patients allocated to the early strategy in order to emulate a trial where patients would have been randomized to receive either IHD or CRRT within twelve hours after the documentation of severe AKI. We determined each patient’s modality group as the first RRT modality they received. The primary outcome was 60-day overall survival. We used two propensity score methods to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between groups and the primary analysis relied on inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results A total of 543 patients were included. Continuous RRT was the first modality in 269 patients and IHD in 274. Patients receiving CRRT had higher cardiovascular and total-SOFA scores. Inverse probability weighting allowed to adequately balance groups on all predefined confounders. The weighted Kaplan–Meier death rate at day 60 was 54·4% in the CRRT group and 46·5% in the IHD group (weighted HR 1·26, 95% CI 1·01–1·60). In a complementary analysis of less severely ill patients (SOFA score: 3–10), receiving IHD was associated with better day 60 survival compared to CRRT (weighted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1·01–3·28; p < 0.01). We found no evidence of a survival difference between the two RRT modalities in more severe patients. Conclusion Compared to IHD, CRRT as first modality seemed to convey no benefit in terms of survival or of kidney recovery and might even have been associated with less favorable outcome in patients with lesser severity of disease. A prospective randomized non-inferiority trial should be implemented to solve the persistent conundrum of the optimal RRT technique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.