Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective: To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. Design: Network meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main outcome measures: Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. Results: 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.Suetonia C Palmer ... Lucia Gagliardi ... et al

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main outcome measures Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. Results 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019153180

Establishing a core outcome set for peritoneal dialysis : report of the SONG-PD (standardized outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis) consensus workshop

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD) are diverse, are measured inconsistently, and may not be important to patients, families, and clinicians. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) initiative aims to establish a core outcome set for trials in PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. We convened an international SONG-PD stakeholder consensus workshop in May 2018 in Vancouver, Canada. Nineteen patients/caregivers and 51 health professionals attended. Participants discussed core outcome domains and implementation in trials in PD. Four themes relating to the formation of core outcome domains were identified: life participation as a main goal of PD, impact of fatigue, empowerment for preparation and planning, and separation of contributing factors from core factors. Considerations for implementation were identified: standardizing patient-reported outcomes, requiring a validated and feasible measure, simplicity of binary outcomes, responsiveness to interventions, and using positive terminology. All stakeholders supported inclusion of PD-related infection, cardiovascular disease, mortality, technique survival, and life participation as the core outcome domains for PD

Mortality Trends After Transfer From Peritoneal Dialysis to Hemodialysis

Introduction Transition to hemodialysis (HD) is a common outcome in peritoneal dialysis (PD), but the associated mortality risk is poorly understood. This study sought to identify rates of and risk factors for mortality after transitioning from PD to HD. Methods Patients with incident PD (between 2000 and 2014) who transferred to HD for ≥1 day were identified, using data from Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation registry (ANZDATA), Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR), Europe Renal Association (ERA) Registry, and the United States Renal Dialysis System (USRDS). Crude mortality rates were calculated for the first 180 days after transfer. Separate multivariable Cox models were built for early (180 days) periods after transfer. Results Overall, 6683, 5847, 21,574, and 80,459 patients were included from ANZDATA, CORR, ERA Registry, and USRDS, respectively. In all registries, crude mortality rate was highest during the first 30 days after a transfer to HD declining thereafter to nadir at 4 to 6 months. Crude mortality rates were lower for patients transferring in the most recent years (than earlier). Older age, PD initiation in earlier cohorts, and longer PD vintage were associated with increased risk of death, with the strongest associations during the first 90 days after transfer and attenuating thereafter. Mortality risk was lower for men than women <90 days after transfer, but higher after 180 days. Conclusion In this multinational study, mortality was highest in the first month after a transfer from PD to HD and risk factors varied by time period after transfer. This study highlights the vulnerability of patients at the time of modality transfer and the need to improve transitions

Transition Between Different Renal Replacement Modalities: Gaps in Knowledge and Care-The Integrated Research Initiative

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have different options to replace the function of their failing kidneys. The "integrated care" model considers treatment pathways rather than individual renal replacement therapy (RRT) techniques. In such a paradigm, the optimal strategy to plan and enact transitions between the different modalities is very relevant, but so far, only limited data on transitions have been published. Perspectives of patients, caregivers, and health professionals on the process of transitioning are even less well documented. Available literature suggests that poor coordination causes significant morbidity and mortality.This review briefly provides the background, development, and scope of the INTErnational Group Research Assessing Transition Effects in Dialysis (INTEGRATED) initiative. We summarize the literature on the transition between different RRT modalities. Further, we present an international research plan to quantify the epidemiology and to assess the qualitative aspects of transition between different modalities

Dialysis initiation, modality choice, access, and prescription: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Globally, the number of patients undergoing maintenance dialysis is increasing, yet throughout the world there is significant variability in the practice of initiating dialysis. Factors such as availability of resources, reasons for starting dialysis, timing of dialysis initiation, patient education and preparedness, dialysis modality and access, as well as varied \u201ccountry-specific\u201d factors significantly affect patient experiences and outcomes. As the burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) has increased globally, there has also been a growing recognition of the importance of patient involvement in determining the goals of care and decisions regarding treatment. In January 2018, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a Controversies Conference focused on dialysis initiation, including modality choice, access, and prescription. Here we present a summary of the conference discussions, including identified knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and priorities for research. A major novel theme represented during the conference was the need to move away from a \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d approach to dialysis and provide more individualized care that incorporates patient goals and preferences while still maintaining best practices for quality and safety. Identifying and including patient-centered goals that can be validated as quality indicators in the context of diverse health care systems to achieve equity of outcomes will require alignment of goals and incentives between patients, providers, regulators, and payers that will vary across health care jurisdictions

Core outcome domains for trials in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: An international Delphi survey

Rationale & Objective Outcomes reported in trials involving patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) are heterogeneous and rarely include patient-reported outcomes. We aimed to identify critically important consensus-based core outcome domains to be reported in trials in ADPKD. Study Design An international 2-round online Delphi survey was conducted in English, French, and Korean languages. Setting & Participants Patients/caregivers and health professionals completed a 9-point Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a Best-Worst Scale. Analytical Approach The absolute and relative importance of outcomes were assessed. Comments were analyzed thematically. Results 1,014 participants (603 [60%] patients/caregivers, 411 [40%] health professionals) from 56 countries completed round 1, and 713 (70%) completed round 2. The prioritized outcomes were kidney function (importance score, 8.6), end-stage kidney disease (8.6), death (7.9), blood pressure (7.9), kidney cyst size/growth (7.8), and cerebral aneurysm (7.7). Kidney cyst–related pain was the highest rated patient-reported outcome by both stakeholder groups. Seven themes explained the prioritization of outcomes: protecting life and health, directly encountering life-threatening and debilitating consequences, specificity to ADPKD, optimizing and extending quality of life, hidden suffering, destroying self-confidence, and lost opportunities. Limitations Study design precluded involvement from those without access to internet or limited computer literacy. Conclusions Kidney function, end-stage kidney disease, and death were the most important outcomes to patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Kidney cyst–related pain was the highest rated patient-reported outcome. Consistent reporting of these top prioritized outcomes may strengthen the value of trials in ADPKD for decision making

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) controversies conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams