No abstract

In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, treatment with higher-intensity continuous renal-replacement therapy did not reduce mortality at 90 days. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00221013.)

SummaryBackgroundPatients undergoing dialysis have a substantially increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Although several trials have shown the cardiovascular benefits of lowering blood pressure in the general population, there is uncertainty about the efficacy and tolerability of reducing blood pressure in patients on dialysis. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of blood pressure lowering in patients on dialysis.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database for trials reported between 1950 and November, 2008, without language restriction. We extracted a standardised dataset from randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering in patients on dialysis that reported cardiovascular outcomes. Meta-analysis was done with a random effects model.FindingsWe identified eight relevant trials, which provided data for 1679 patients and 495 cardiovascular events. Weighted mean systolic blood pressure was 4·5 mm Hg lower and diastolic blood pressure 2·3 mm Hg lower in actively treated patients than in controls. Blood pressure lowering treatment was associated with lower risks of cardiovascular events (RR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·009), all-cause mortality (RR 0·80, 0·66–0·96; p=0·014), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0·71, 0·50–0·99; p=0·044) than control regimens. The effects seem to be consistent across a range of patient groups included in the studies.InterpretationTreatment with agents that lower blood pressure should routinely be considered for individuals undergoing dialysis to reduce the very high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rate in this population.FundingNational Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Program.

Among patients at high risk for renal complications who were undergoing angiography, there was no benefit of intravenous sodium bicarbonate over intravenous sodium chloride or of oral acetylcysteine over placebo for the prevention of death, need for dialysis, or persistent decline in kidney function at 90 days or for the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PRESERVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01467466 .).

Word count (abstract): words Word count (body -excludes figures, tables and references):3,492 words Short title:Core outcomes in hemodialysis 4 ABSTRACT Background: Survival and quality of life for patients on hemodialysis remain poor despite

Among AKI survivors, initial treatment with IRRT might be associated with higher rates of dialysis dependence than CRRT. However, this finding largely relies on data from observational trials, potentially subject to allocation bias, hence further high-quality studies are necessary.

Evidence-informed decision-making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient-centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology−Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis. Key stakeholders including eight patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policy makers, industry, researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations; flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time; deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity; understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes; and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality ndicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials), and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment, and improved patient outcomes.

BackgroundMarkers of kidney dysfunction such as proteinuria or albuminuria have been reported to be associated with coronary heart disease, but the consistency and strength of any such relationship has not been clearly defined. This lack of clarity has led to great uncertainty as to how proteinuria should be treated in the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. We therefore undertook a systematic review of published cohort studies aiming to provide a reliable estimate of the strength of association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease.Methods and FindingsA meta-analysis of cohort studies was conducted to obtain a summary estimate of the association between measures of proteinuria and coronary risk. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting an age- or multivariate-adjusted estimate and standard error of the association between proteinuria and coronary heart disease. Studies were excluded if the majority of the study population had known glomerular disease or were the recipients of renal transplants. Two independent researchers extracted the estimates of association between proteinuria (total urinary protein >300 mg/d), microalbuminuria (urinary albumin 30–300 mg/d), macroalbuminuria (urinary albumin >300 mg/d), and risk of coronary disease from individual studies. These estimates were combined using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine possible sources of heterogeneity in effect size. A total of 26 cohort studies were identified involving 169,949 individuals and 7,117 coronary events (27% fatal). The presence of proteinuria was associated with an approximate 50% increase in coronary risk (risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.74) after adjustment for known risk factors. For albuminuria, there was evidence of a dose–response relationship: individuals with microalbuminuria were at 50% greater risk of coronary heart disease (risk ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.30–1.66) than those without; in those with macroalbuminuria the risk was more than doubled (risk ratio 2.17, 1.87–2.52). Sensitivity analysis indicated no important differences in prespecified subgroups.ConclusionThese data confirm a strong and continuous association between proteinuria and subsequent risk of coronary heart disease, and suggest that proteinuria should be incorporated into the assessment of an individual's cardiovascular risk.