8 research outputs found

    Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

    Get PDF
    To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet therapy in patients with any form of kidney disease, including patients with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT), patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients

    Antioxidants for chronic kidney disease

    Get PDF
    Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant risk factor for premature cardiovascular disease and death. Increased oxidative stress in people with CKD has been implicated as a potential causative factor for some cardiovascular diseases. Antioxidant therapy may reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in people with CKD. Objectives To examine the benefits and harms of antioxidant therapy on mortality and cardiovascular events in people with CKD stages 3 to 5; dialysis, and kidney transplantation patients. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2011), CENTRAL (Issue 6, 2011), MEDLINE (from 1966) and EMBASE (from 1980). Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of antioxidants for people with CKD, or subsets of RCTs reporting outcomes for participants with CKD. Data collection and analysis Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors who also performed data extraction using standardised forms. Results were pooled using the random effects model and expressed as either risk ratios (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We identified 10 studies (1979 participants) that assessed antioxidant therapy in haemodialysis patients (two studies); kidney transplant recipients (four studies); dialysis and non‐dialysis CKD patients (one study); and patients requiring surgery (one study). Two additional studies reported the effect of an oral antioxidant inflammation modulator in patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 20 to 45 mL/min/1.73 m²), and post‐hoc findings from a subgroup of people with mild‐to‐moderate renal insufficiency (serum creatinine ≥125 μmol/L) respectively. Interventions included different doses of vitamin E (two studies); multiple antioxidant therapy (three studies); co‐enzyme Q (one study); acetylcysteine (one study); bardoxolone methyl (one study); and human recombinant superoxide dismutase (two studies). Compared with placebo, antioxidant therapy showed no clear overall effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.27; P = 0.71); all‐cause mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; P = 0.48); cardiovascular disease (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.18; P = 0.24); coronary heart disease (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23; P = 0.22); cerebrovascular disease (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.32; P = 0.63); or peripheral vascular disease (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.12; P = 0.10). Subgroup analyses found no evidence of significant heterogeneity based on proportions of males (P = 0.99) or diabetes (P = 0.87) for cardiovascular disease. There was significant heterogeneity for cardiovascular disease when studies were analysed by CKD stage (P = 0.003). Significant benefit was conferred by antioxidant therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention in dialysis patients (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.80; P = 0.001), although no effect was observed in CKD patients (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.32; P = 0.63). Antioxidant therapy was found to significantly reduce development of end‐stage of kidney disease (ESKD) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.00; P = 0.05); lowered serum creatinine levels (MD 1.10 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.81; P = 0.003); and improved creatinine clearance (MD 14.53 mL/min, 95% CI 1.20 to 27.86; P = 0.03). Serious adverse events were not significantly increased by antioxidants (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 6.95; P = 0.15). Risk of bias was assessed for all studies. Studies that were classified as unclear for random sequence generation or allocation concealment reported significant benefits from antioxidant therapy (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.80; P = 0.001) compared with studies at low risk of bias (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.32; P = 0.63). Authors' conclusions Although antioxidant therapy does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular and all‐cause death or major cardiovascular events in people with CKD, it is possible that some benefit may be present, particularly in those on dialysis. However, the small size and generally suboptimal quality of the included studies highlighted the need for sufficiently powered studies to confirm this possibility. Current evidence suggests that antioxidant therapy in predialysis CKD patients may prevent progression to ESKD; this finding was however based on a very small number of events. Further studies with longer follow‐up are needed for confirmation. Appropriately powered studies are needed to reliably assess the effects of antioxidant therapy in people with CKD

    Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

    No full text
    Background: Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated. Data collection and analysis: Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main results: We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost. Authors' conclusions: Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain

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

    No full text
    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

    No full text
    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
    corecore