Randomized multicentre pilot study of sacubitril/valsartan versus irbesartan in patients with chronic kidney disease: United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection (HARP)- III—rationale, trial design and baseline data

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular disease. Data from other populations and animal experiments suggest that neprilysin inhibition (which augments the natriuretic peptide system) may reduce these risks, but clinical trials among patients with CKD are required to test this hypothesis. METHODS: UK Heart and Renal Protection III (HARP-III) is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg two times daily (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) with irbesartan 300 mg one time daily among 414 patients with CKD. Patients ≥18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥45 but <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) >20 mg/mmol or eGFR ≥20 but <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (regardless of uACR) were invited to be screened. Following a 4- to 7-week pre-randomization single-blind placebo run-in phase (during which any current renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were stopped), willing and eligible participants were randomly assigned either sacubitril/valsartan or irbesartan and followed-up for 12 months. The primary aim was to compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan and irbesartan on measured GFR after 12 months of therapy. Important secondary outcomes include effects on albuminuria, change in eGFR over time and the safety and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in CKD. RESULTS: Between November 2014 and January 2016, 620 patients attended a screening visit and 566 (91%) entered the pre-randomization run-in phase. Of these, 414 (73%) participants were randomized (mean age 63 years; 72% male). The mean eGFR was 34.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the median uACR was 58.5 mg/mmol. CONCLUSIONS: UK HARP-III will provide important information on the short-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan on renal function, tolerability and safety among patients with CKD

Conventional and Genetic Evidence on the Association between Adiposity and CKD

Background The size of any causal contribution of central and general adiposity to CKD risk and the underlying mechanism of mediation are unknown. Methods Data from 281,228 UK Biobank participants were used to estimate the relevance of waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index (BMI) to CKD prevalence. Conventional approaches used logistic regression. Genetic analyses used Mendelian randomization (MR) and data from 394 waist-to-hip ratio and 773 BMI-associated loci. Models assessed the role of known mediators (diabetes mellitus and BP) by adjusting for measured values (conventional analyses) or genetic associations of the selected loci (multivariable MR). Results Evidence of CKD was found in 18,034 (6.4%) participants. Each 0.06 higher measured waist-to-hip ratio and each 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI were associated with 69% (odds ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.64 to 1.74) and 58% (1.58; 1.55 to 1.62) higher odds of CKD, respectively. In analogous MR analyses, each 0.06–genetically-predicted higher waist-to-hip ratio was associated with a 29% (1.29; 1.20 to 1.38) increased odds of CKD, and each 5-kg/m2 genetically-predicted higher BMI was associated with a 49% (1.49; 1.39 to 1.59) increased odds. After adjusting for diabetes and measured BP, chi-squared values for associations for waist-to-hip ratio and BMI fell by 56%. In contrast, mediator adjustment using multivariable MR found 83% and 69% reductions in chi-squared values for genetically-predicted waist-to-hip ratio and BMI models, respectively. Conclusions Genetic analyses suggest that conventional associations between central and general adiposity with CKD are largely causal. However, conventional approaches underestimate mediating roles of diabetes, BP, and their correlates. Genetic approaches suggest these mediators explain most of adiposity-CKD–associated risk.</p

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials. METHODS In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P=0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.

Impact of diabetes on the effects of sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes: collaborative meta-analysis of large placebo-controlled trials

Background: Large trials have shown that sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of adverse kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease, or with type 2 diabetes and high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. None of the trials recruiting patients with and without diabetes were designed to assess outcomes separately in patients without diabetes. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of SGLT2 inhibitor trials. We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for trials published from database inception to Sept 5, 2022. SGLT2 inhibitor trials that were double-blind, placebo-controlled, performed in adults (age ≥18 years), large (≥500 participants per group), and at least 6 months in duration were included. Summary-level data used for analysis were extracted from published reports or provided by trial investigators, and inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to estimate treatment effects. The main efficacy outcomes were kidney disease progression (standardised to a definition of a sustained ≥50% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] from randomisation, a sustained low eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from kidney failure), acute kidney injury, and a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure. Other outcomes were death from cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular disease considered separately, and the main safety outcomes were ketoacidosis and lower limb amputation. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022351618. Findings: We identified 13 trials involving 90 413 participants. After exclusion of four participants with uncertain diabetes status, we analysed 90 409 participants (74 804 [82·7%] participants with diabetes [>99% with type 2 diabetes] and 15 605 [17·3%] without diabetes; trial-level mean baseline eGFR range 37–85 mL/min per 1·73 m2). Compared with placebo, allocation to an SGLT2 inhibitor reduced the risk of kidney disease progression by 37% (relative risk [RR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·58–0·69) with similar RRs in patients with and without diabetes. In the four chronic kidney disease trials, RRs were similar irrespective of primary kidney diagnosis. SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of acute kidney injury by 23% (0·77, 0·70–0·84) and the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure by 23% (0·77, 0·74–0·81), again with similar effects in those with and without diabetes. SGLT2 inhibitors also reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (0·86, 0·81–0·92) but did not significantly reduce the risk of non-cardiovascular death (0·94, 0·88–1·02). For these mortality outcomes, RRs were similar in patients with and without diabetes. For all outcomes, results were broadly similar irrespective of trial mean baseline eGFR. Based on estimates of absolute effects, the absolute benefits of SGLT2 inhibition outweighed any serious hazards of ketoacidosis or amputation. Interpretation: In addition to the established cardiovascular benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, the randomised data support their use for modifying risk of kidney disease progression and acute kidney injury, not only in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, but also in patients with chronic kidney disease or heart failure irrespective of diabetes status, primary kidney disease, or kidney function. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Kidney Research UK

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on admission rates for, and management of, acute coronary syndromes in England

Background Several countries affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have reported a substantial drop in the number of patients attending the emergency department with acute coronary syndromes and a reduced number of cardiac procedures. We aimed to understand the scale, nature, and duration of changes to admissions for different types of acute coronary syndrome in England and to evaluate whether in-hospital management of patients has been affected as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We analysed data on hospital admissions in England for types of acute coronary syndrome from Jan 1, 2019, to May 24, 2020, that were recorded in the Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care database. Admissions were classified as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), myocardial infarction of unknown type, or other acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina). We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery). We calculated the numbers of weekly admissions and procedures undertaken; percentage reductions in weekly admissions and across subgroups were also calculated, with 95% CIs. Findings Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome declined from mid-February, 2020, falling from a 2019 baseline rate of 3017 admissions per week to 1813 per week by the end of March, 2020, a reduction of 40% (95% CI 37–43). This decline was partly reversed during April and May, 2020, such that by the last week of May, 2020, there were 2522 admissions, representing a 16% (95% CI 13–20) reduction from baseline. During the period of declining admissions, there were reductions in the numbers of admissions for all types of acute coronary syndrome, including both STEMI and NSTEMI, but relative and absolute reductions were larger for NSTEMI, with 1267 admissions per week in 2019 and 733 per week by the end of March, 2020, a percent reduction of 42% (95% CI 38–46). In parallel, reductions were recorded in the number of PCI procedures for patients with both STEMI (438 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 346 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 21%, 95% CI 12–29) and NSTEMI (383 PCI procedures per week in 2019 vs 240 by the end of March, 2020; percent reduction 37%, 29–45). The median length of stay among patients with acute coronary syndrome fell from 4 days (IQR 2–9) in 2019 to 3 days (1–5) by the end of March, 2020. Interpretation Compared with the weekly average in 2019, there was a substantial reduction in the weekly numbers of patients with acute coronary syndrome who were admitted to hospital in England by the end of March, 2020, which had been partly reversed by the end of May, 2020. The reduced number of admissions during this period is likely to have resulted in increases in out-of-hospital deaths and long-term complications of myocardial infarction and missed opportunities to offer secondary prevention treatment for patients with coronary heart disease. The full extent of the effect of COVID-19 on the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome will continue to be assessed by updating these analyses

A meta-analysis of GFR slope as a surrogate endpoint for kidney failure

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline is causally associated with kidney failure and is a candidate surrogate endpoint for clinical trials of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. Analyses across a diverse spectrum of interventions and populations is required for acceptance of GFR decline as an endpoint. In an analysis of individual participant data, for each of 66 studies (total of 186,312 participants), we estimated treatment effects on the total GFR slope, computed from baseline to 3 years, and chronic slope, starting at 3 months after randomization, and on the clinical endpoint (doubling of serum creatinine, GFR < 15 ml min−1 per 1.73 m2 or kidney failure with replacement therapy). We used a Bayesian mixed-effects meta-regression model to relate treatment effects on GFR slope with those on the clinical endpoint across all studies and by disease groups (diabetes, glomerular diseases, CKD or cardiovascular diseases). Treatment effects on the clinical endpoint were strongly associated with treatment effects on total slope (median coefficient of determination (R2) = 0.97 (95% Bayesian credible interval (BCI) 0.82–1.00)) and moderately associated with those on chronic slope (R2 = 0.55 (95% BCI 0.25–0.77)). There was no evidence of heterogeneity across disease. Our results support the use of total slope as a primary endpoint for clinical trials of CKD progression

Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death.MethodsIn this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment.ResultsA total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55).ConclusionsIn patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936. opens in new tab; ISRCTN number, 50189673. opens in new tab.