scholarly journals Outcomes of coronavirus 2019 infection in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204062232199886
Author(s):  
Yi-Chih Lin ◽  
Tai-Shuan Lai ◽  
Shuei-Liong Lin ◽  
Yung-Ming Chen ◽  
Tzong-Shinn Chu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background: Information on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains limited. To understand the influence of COVID-19 infection in patients with pre-existing CKD, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and critical progression between patients with and without CKD. Methods: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational, case-control, cross-sectional, and case-series studies analyzing outcomes of COVID-19 infection in patients with pre-existing CKD from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases published on the Internet before 16 July 2020. Results: A total of 27 studies comprising 77,856 patients with COVID-19 infection was identified; 3922 patients with pre-existing CKD were assigned CKD group, and 73,934 patients were assigned to the non-CKD group. The pooled analysis showed that patients with CKD had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization than those without CKD [odds ratio (OR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91–2.66, p < 0.001; OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.93–6.28, p < 0.001; respectively]. Patients with CKD had a higher risk of critically ill conditions than those without CKD in the pooled analysis of studies with multivariable adjustment (adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.95–4.77, p = 0.07) and in the analysis of all included studies (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.71–2.26, p = 0.41), but both analyses did not attain statistical significance. Conclusion: COVID-19 infected patients with CKD had significantly increased risks of all-cause mortality and hospitalization compared with those without CKD.

scholarly journals Hyperuricemia, urate-lowering therapy, and kidney outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2110166
Author(s):  
Gaurav Sharma ◽  
Abhishek Dubey ◽  
Nilesh Nolkha ◽  
Jasvinder A. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Function ◽  
Kidney Failure ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register

Background: Contradictory evidence exists for association of hyperuricemia and kidney function. To investigate the association of hyperuricemia and kidney function decline (hyperuricemia question) and effect of urate-lowering therapies (ULTs) on kidney function (ULT question), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from inception to July 2020. We selected observational studies for the hyperuricemia question and controlled trials for the ULT question. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and abstracted the data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was done using the inverse variance method and random effect model. We estimated odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), risk ratio (RR), and the mean difference (MD). Evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: Of 12,037 studies screened, 131 studies with 3,414,226 patients were included. Hyperuricemia was associated with a significant risk of rapid estimated glomerula filtration rate (eGFR) decline ⩾3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 per year (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.20–1.59; low certainty), albuminuria (OR/HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.34–2.79; very low certainty), chronic kidney disease (OR/HR 2.13, 95% CI 1.74–2.61; very low certainty), and kidney failure (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.18–1.99; very low certainty). Compared with control, ULT use for ⩾1 year was associated with significantly more improved eGFR (MD 1.81 ml/min per 1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.26–3.35; very low certainty), serum creatinine (MD −0.33 mg/dl, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.19; low certainty), and proteinuria (MD −5.44 mg/day, 95% CI −8.49 to −2.39; low certainty), but no difference in kidney failure. Conclusion: Hyperuricemia is associated with worsening eGFR, albuminuria, chronic kidney disease, and kidney failure. ULT use for ⩾1 year may improve kidney function. Registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO database, CRD42015013859.

scholarly journals Effect of Uric Acid-Lowering Agents on Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongxuan Xu ◽  
Yunqing Liu ◽  
Lingbing Meng ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Deping Liu
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Uric Acid ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Heart Failure Patients ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Elevated serum uric acid (SUA) level is considered an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and the combined endpoint of death or readmission in cardiovascular disease patients. However, the causal relationship between uric acid-lowering therapies (ULTs) and heart failure is still controversial.Design: Meta-analyses were performed to systematically compile available evidence to determine the overall effect of ULTs on heart failure patients.Method: We conducted this systematic review following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials related to the influence of a ULT intervention in people with heart failure. Data extracted from the included studies were subjected to a meta-analysis to compare the effects of ULTs to a control.Results: Pooled analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 1.63%; 95%CI, −1.61 to 4.88; p = 0.32; three studies). Pooled analysis of the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) showed an insignificant result towards the ULT group (MD, 4.59; 95%CI, −12.683 to 22.00; p = 0.61; four studies). Pooled analysis of BNP/NT-pro-BNP led to a nearly statistically significant result towards the ULT group (SMD, −0.30; 95%CI, −0.64 to 0.04; p = 0.08; five studies). Pooled analysis of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death between ULTs (all XOIs) and placebo did not show a significant difference (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.15, p = 0.39).Conclusion: ULTs did not improve LVEF, BNP/NT-pro-BNP, 6MWT, all-cause mortality, and CV death in heart failure patients. UA may just be a risk marker of heart failure.

scholarly journals Effects of antihypertensives, lipid-modifying drugs, glycaemic control drugs and sodium bicarbonate on the progression of stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e030596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn S Taylor ◽  
Julie Mclellan ◽  
Jan Y Verbakel ◽  
Jeffrey K Aronson ◽  
Daniel S Lasserson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of drug interventions that may modify the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults with CKD stages 3 and 4.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsSearching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Health Technology Assessment, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Clinical Trials Register, from March 1999 to July 2018, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for hypertension, lipid modification, glycaemic control and sodium bicarbonate, compared with placebo, no drug or a drug from another class, in ≥40 adults with CKD stages 3 and/or 4, with at least 2 years of follow-up and reporting renal function (primary outcome), proteinuria, adverse events, maintenance dialysis, transplantation, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we used the ratio of means (ROM) at the end of the trial in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed methodological quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.ResultsWe included 35 RCTs and over 51 000 patients. Data were limited, and heterogeneity varied. Final renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate) was 6% higher in those taking glycaemic control drugs (ROM 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, I2=0%, low GRADE confidence) and 4% higher in those taking lipid-modifying drugs (ROM 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, I2=88%, very low GRADE confidence). For RCTs of antihypertensive drugs, there were no significant differences in renal function. Treatment with lipid-modifying drugs led to a 36% reduction in cardiovascular disease and 26% reduction in all-cause mortality.ConclusionsGlycaemic control and lipid-modifying drugs may slow the progression of CKD, but we found no pooled evidence of benefit nor harm from antihypertensive drugs. However, given the data limitations, further research is needed to confirm these findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015017501.

scholarly journals Oral Bicarbonate Therapy in Non-Haemodialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
May Khei Hu ◽  
Miles D. Witham ◽  
Roy L. Soiza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Metabolic Acidosis ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Bicarbonate Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Metabolic acidosis is a common complication in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and is associated with an accelerated decline in renal function. Oral bicarbonate therapy has been used to counteract metabolic acidosis in CKD for decades. However, until recently, there have been very few intervention studies testing the effectiveness of bicarbonate therapy at improving metabolic acidosis or its consequences in patients with CKD. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the outcomes of all published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of oral bicarbonate therapy in adults with CKD. Ovid MEDLINE®, EMBASE® and Cochrane Library were searched in mid-October 2018 for English literature, with no restrictions applied to the publication status or date. Seven RCTs that recruited 815 participants met our inclusion criteria after full text review. Oral bicarbonate supplementation resulted in a slightly higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (mean difference 3.1 mL/min per 1.73 m2; 95% CI 1.3–4.9) and serum bicarbonate levels (mean difference 3.4 mmol/L; 95% CI 1.9–4.9) at the end of follow-up (three months to five years) compared to those given placebo or conventional CKD treatment. When limited to studies reporting outcomes at one year, the positive effect of oral bicarbonate therapy on eGFR was attenuated. There were no significant treatment effects in other parameters such as systolic blood pressure (BP) and weight. These findings should be interpreted with caution and further trial evidence is needed to establish the net overall benefit or harm of oral bicarbonate therapy in CKD.

Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis compared with planned peritoneal dialysis and with urgent-start hemodialysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 089686082091871
Author(s):  
Guo Xieyi ◽  
Tang Xiaohong ◽  
Wu Xiaofang ◽  
Li Zi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Exit Site Infection ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Significant Difference

An increasing number of studies have focused on whether peritoneal dialysis (PD) can be used for the urgent initiation of dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility and safety of urgent-start PD compared with those of planned PD and urgent-start hemodialysis (HD) in this population. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), clinicaltrials.gov , and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched for relevant studies. Conference abstracts were also searched in relevant websites. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 15 trials involving 2426 participants were identified. The quality of the included studies was fair, but the quality of evidence was very low. Unadjusted meta-analysis showed that urgent-start PD had significantly higher mortality than planned PD, while adjusted meta-analysis did not show a significant difference. Higher incident of leakage and catheter mechanical dysfunction were observed in urgent-start PD. However, peritonitis, exit-site infection, or PD technique survival were comparable between urgent-start and planned PD. The all-cause mortality was comparable in urgent-start PD and urgent-start HD. Bacteremia was significantly lower in the urgent-start PD group than with urgent-start HD. Based on limited evidences, PD may be a viable alternative to HD for CKD patients requiring urgent-start dialysis. Because of the inconsistent results and the low quality of evidence, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn for whether urgent-start PD was comparable with planned PD. Therefore, high-quality and large-scale studies are needed in the future.

Comparison between Intravenous Iron and Oral Iron Preparations for the Treatment of Anemia of Chronic Kidney Disease - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3748-3748
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Benaya Rozen-Zvi ◽  
Mical Paul ◽  
Leonard Leibovici ◽  
Gafter Uzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Iron ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Iron Preparation ◽  
Iv Iron

Abstract Background: There is confounding data regarding the best method of iron supplementation in chronic kidney disease (CKD), without a consistent approach in clinical practice. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) iron versus oral iron in patients treated for anemia of CKD. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing IV iron preparation with oral iron preparation for the treatment of anemia in patients with CKD (stage III, IV and V). The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings and references were searched until 2007. Primary outcomes: absolute hemoglobin (Hb) level or change in Hb level from baseline at two months or at end of study; all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) in predialysis patient and adverse events. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for outcomes with continuous variables and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated and pooled. Results: Our search yielded 11 trials which compared IV iron preparations (iron sucrose, iron gluconate or iron dextran) to oral iron. Compared to oral iron, there was a significant rise in Hb level in the IV iron treated hemodialysis patients (WMD 1.17; 95%CI 0.19–2.15, fig). Significant heterogeneity was observed due to different baseline Hb values and baseline iron status, different dosages of oral iron, and different dosages of erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA). For predialysis patients, there was a small but significant difference in the Hb level favoring the IV iron group (WMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.15–0.4, fig). For both groups effect estimates were not influenced by ESA administration. In predialysis patients, there was no significant difference in the risk for requiring RRT during the trial between the different groups (RR 0.63; 95%CI 0.25–1.65). Data on all-cause mortality were sparse (RR 0.54; 95%CI 0.09–3.13, 3 trials) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 0.9; 95%CI 0.65–1.24) between the IV and oral treated patients. However, discontinuations of treatment were more common (RR 3.27; 95%CI 1.15–9.26) for the IV iron treated patients. Conclusions: Our review demonstrates that dialysis patients treated with IV iron have better Hb response than patients treated with oral iron. For predialysis patients, this effect is very small. IV iron should be preferred in the treatment of anemia in dialysis patients. In predialysis patients the slight advantage in Hb response should be weighed against the inconvenience and cost of IV iron treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document