mTOR inhibitors induce erythropoietin resistance in renal transplant recipients

Aim: To elucidate the role of mTOR inhibitors on iron, hepcidin and erythropoietin-mediated regulation of hemopoiesis in stable renal transplant recipients (RTR). Background: Impaired hemopoiesis is common following renal transplantation managed using mTOR inhibitors. The mechanisms responsible are uncertain but include direct effects on iron, hepcidin or erythropoietin-mediated hemopoiesis. Methods: We conducted a single center prospective case-control study of 26 adult RTR with stable allograft function. RTR received stable mTOR dosing (cases, 11/26 [42%]) or stable tacrolimus dosing (controls, 15/26 [58%]). Baseline demographics, full blood count, renal function, iron studies, hepcidin-25, Interleukin-6 (IL-6) and erythropoietin (EPO) levels were determined. Results: There were no differences in age, gender or allograft function. Mean daily sirolimus dose for cases was 1.72 mg, with mean trough level of 8.46 ng/mL. Mean daily tacrolimus dose for controls was 4.3 mg, with mean trough level of 5.8 ng / mL. There were no differences in mean hemoglobin (143 vs. 147 g / L; p = 0.59), MCV (88 vs. 90 fL; p = 0.35), serum ferritin (150 vs. 85.7 μg / L; p = 0.06), transferrin saturation (26 vs. 23.3%; p = 0.46), IL-6 (11 vs. 7.02 pg / ml; p = 0.14) or hepcidin-25 (3.62 vs. 3.26 nM; p = 0.76) between the groups. EPO levels were significantly higher in the group receiving mTOR therapy (16.8 vs. 8.49 IU / L; p = 0.028). On logistic regression analysis EPO level was the only variable that had a significant impact providing an odds ratio of 0.84 (95%CI 0.66–0.98). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) for the analysis was 0.77 (95%CI 0.54–0.94) with p = 0.04. Conclusion: Higher levels of EPO in the absence of deranged iron biochemistry or hepcidin-25 levels suggest that EPO resistance rather than impaired iron metabolism may contribute to the impaired hemopoiesis previously demonstrated in RTR on mTOR therapy

The Health Burden Experienced by Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: Quality of Life and Cancers

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a leading public health problem affecting almost 700 million people globally and is the 12th leading cause of death worldwide.1 The increasing burden of CKD across the globe parallels the increase in ageing populations and the growing prevalence of vascular comorbid conditions like diabetes and hypertension. CKD is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, with patients experiencing an increased risk of death from related conditions such as heart disease and cancers. In 2017, CKD alone resulted in 1.2 million deaths universally.1 Additionally, 1.4 million deaths from cardiovascular disease were attributed to impaired kidney function. CKD is associated with multiple comorbidities which adversely impacts on the life of affected persons and results in reduced quality of life (QoL) compared to the general population,2 with a trend for the lowest QoL experienced by those with kidney failure requiring dialysis.3 Utilities are the numerical value attached to the strength of an individual's preference for specific health-related outcomes. Utility is measured on a 0 to 1 scale, where 0 represents death and 1 represents full health.3 While previous studies have assessed QoL measures in CKD, few have examined domain-specific data in detail across a wide spectrum of CKD stages. Knowledge of factors that negatively affect QoL in CKD may help inform the development of targeted interventions and health policies to help improve QoL in this population. Impaired kidney function is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality, particularly in those with kidney failure requiring dialysis. Kidney transplantation remains the treatment of choice for most patients with kidney failure and is associated with improved survival and QoL compared with treatment with dialysis. However, kidney transplantation is associated with an increased risk of multiple complications through exposure to chronic immunosuppression, with cancer now the leading cause of death in this population.4 Although clinical practice guidelines recommend age and sex-specific screening for potential kidney transplant recipients, cancers ensuing early post-transplant may occur. The incidence and clinical outcomes of these cancers remain uncertain. Knowledge of the epidemiology of these cancers and their risk factors for adverse outcomes will help identify those patients at high risk for developing early cancers post-transplant and facilitate appropriate interventions such as targeted cancer screening in this at-risk population. The aims of this thesis are two-fold. Firstly, we aimed to compare the overall and domain specific QoL in a large cohort of patients with different stages of CKD (stage 3-5, dialysis and kidney transplant recipients) and determine the factors associated with reduced QoL. Secondly, we aimed to compare the burden, frequency, type, stages of cancers and risk of mortality with cancer that occurred early (12 months) after kidney transplantation. Chapter 1 describes and quantifies the disease burden of patients with kidney disease. Chapter 2 reports the QoL experienced by people with CKD, across a broad spectrum of CKD stages and explores overall and domain-specific QoL measures and factors associated with decrements in QoL. Chapter 3 reports the burden of early cancers (occurring <12 months) after kidney transplantation and describes the types, stages, frequency of these cancers, explores mortality associated with early cancers and factors associated with mortality from these cancers. Chapter 4 focusses on discussions related to quality of life in CKD and early posttransplant cancers and future steps on improving care for this group of patients. This thesis generated original insights into the QoL experienced by patients across a broad spectrum of CKD, the factors associated with poor QoL and highlights the need for novel social and medical interventions to support this vulnerable group. This work also provides insight into the burden of early cancers experienced by kidney transplant recipients, which in turn leads to increased morbidity and mortality and emphasizes the need for development of screening and treatment approaches to help improve outcomes in this population

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and CKD: Are you a #flozinator?

Sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have rapidly emerged as a novel therapy to reduce the rate of progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). With humble beginnings in the 19th century for treating malaria, this class of drugs initially developed for the treatment of diabetes has now revolutionized the management of heart failure and CKD. SGLT2 inhibitors trigger glucosuria, thus modestly improving glycemic control. In addition, they have pleiotropic effects, such as reducing intraglomerular pressure and improving tubuloglomerular feedback, which lead to their beneficial effects on CKD progression. Recent data from randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of this class of drugs in CKD. We briefly review the evidence from major trials on SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD, discuss the mechanisms of action and provide an overview of the safe and successful prescription of these medications

Boletín TR-UCO. Directorio OTRI, n. 26

Our understanding of the pathophysiology of the anaemia of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has improved considerably in the last decade with the discovery of the iron regulatory peptide hepcidin. Reduced clearance of hepcidin and the presence of a chronic inflammatory state contribute to elevated hepcidin levels in kidney disease. The recent discovery of the various factors and signalling pathways regulating hepcidin has opened up an exciting avenue for research into the development of newer agents that could treat anaemia of CKD. This review highlights our current understanding of iron metabolism in health, the regulators of hepcidin, issues associated with the current available therapies for the treatment of anaemia in CKD and potential novel therapies that could be available in the near future targeting the various factors that regulate hepcidin

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately affects people with chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in people with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed through February 2021. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: People with CKD with or without COVID-19. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidence of COVID-19, death, respiratory failure, dyspnea, recovery, intensive care admission, hospital admission, need for supplemental oxygen, hospital discharge, sepsis, short-term dialysis, acute kidney injury, and fatigue. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Random-effects meta-analysis and evidence certainty adjudicated using an adapted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: 348 studies (382,407 participants with COVID-19 and CKD; 1,139,979 total participants with CKD) were included. Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher in people with CKD treated with dialysis (105 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 91-120; 95% prediction interval [PrI], 25-235; 59 studies; 468,233 participants) than CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy (16 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 4-33; 95% PrI, 0-92; 5 studies; 70,683 participants) and kidney or pancreas-kidney transplant recipients (23 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 18-30; 95% PrI, 2-67; 29 studies; 120,281 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of death in people with CKD and COVID-19 was 32 per 1000 person-weeks (95% CI, 30-35; 95% PrI, 4-81; 229 studies; 70,922 participants), which may be higher compared to people with CKD without COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 10.26; 95% CI, 6.78-15.53; 95% PrI, 2.62-40.15; 4 studies; 18,347 participants). LIMITATIONS: Analyses were generally based on low-certainty evidence. Few studies reported outcomes in people with CKD without COVID-19 to calculate the excess risk attributable to COVID-19 and potential confounders were not adjusted for in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 may be higher in people receiving maintenance dialysis compared to those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy or those who are kidney or pancreas-kidney transplant recipients. People with CKD and COVID-19 may have a higher incidence of death than people with CKD without COVID-19

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p