Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) can affect hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with estimates ranging between 0.5% and 40%. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting incidence, mortality and risk factors for AKI in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods We systematically searched 11 electronic databases until 29 May 2020 for studies in English reporting original data on AKI and kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Incidences of AKI and KRT and risk ratios for mortality associated with AKI were pooled using generalized linear mixed and random-effects models. Potential risk factors for AKI were assessed using meta-regression. Incidences were stratified by geographic location and disease severity. Results A total of 3042 articles were identified, of which 142 studies were included, with 49 048 hospitalized COVID-19 patients including 5152 AKI events. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low. The pooled incidence of AKI was 28.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.8–39.5] among hospitalized COVID-19 patients from the USA and Europe (20 studies) and 5.5% (95% CI 4.1–7.4) among patients from China (62 studies), whereas the pooled incidence of KRT was 7.7% (95% CI 5.1–11.4; 18 studies) and 2.2% (95% CI 1.5–3.3; 52 studies), respectively. Among patients admitted to the intensive care unit, the incidence of KRT was 20.6% (95% CI 15.7–26.7; 38 studies). Meta-regression analyses showed that age, male sex, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic kidney disease were associated with the occurrence of AKI; in itself, AKI was associated with an increased risk of mortality, with a pooled risk ratio of 4.6 (95% CI 3.3–6.5). Conclusions AKI and KRT are common events in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, with estimates varying across geographic locations. Additional studies are needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and optimal treatment of AKI in these patients.
The correlation coefficient is a statistical measure often used in studies to show an association between variables or to look at the agreement between two methods. In this paper we will discuss not only the basics of the correlation coefficient, such as its assumptions and how it is interpreted, but also important limitations when using the correlation coefficient, such as its assumption of a linear association and its sensitivity to the range of observations. We will also discuss why the coefficient is invalid when used to assess agreement of two methods aiming to measure a certain value, and discuss better alternatives, such as the intraclass coefficient and Bland-Altman’s limits of agreement. The concepts discussed in this paper are supported with examples from literature in the field of nephrology.
Half of heart failure (HF) patients have chronic kidney disease (CKD) complicating their pharmacological management. We evaluated physicians' and patients' patterns of use of evidence-based medical therapies in HF across CKD stages.
Background: To investigate the comparative effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) on cardiovascular outcomes in routine clinical practice, which have never been directly compared in head-to-head outcome trials. Methods: We compared outcomes of adults who newly started SGLT2i or GLP1-RA therapy in Stockholm, Sweden, during 2013-2019. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary outcomes included the individual MACE components and hospitalization for heart failure. Cox regression with propensity score overlap weighting was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals and adjust for 57 covariates. Results: We included 12,375 individuals, of which 5489 initiated SGLT2i and 6886 GLP1-RA therapy, followed for median 1.6 years. Mean age was 61 years and 37.6% were women. Compared with GLP1-RA, SGLT2i new users had similar risk of MACE risk (adjusted HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.31). The adjusted HRs (95% CI) for SGLT2i vs. GLP1-RA were 0.80 (0.59-1.09) for heart failure hospitalization, 0.95 (0.58-1.55) for cardiovascular death, 0.91 (0.67-1.24) for myocardial infarction and 1.71 (1.14-2.59) for ischemic stroke (5-year absolute risk difference for stroke 1.9% [95% CI 0.8-3.0]). Conclusions: In a largely primary-prevention population of people undergoing routine care, no differences were observed in MACE risk among initiators of SGLT2i and GLP1-RA. However, compared with GLP1RA, the use of SGLT2i was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke that was small in absolute magnitude.
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.