Dental Health and Mortality in People With End-Stage Kidney Disease Treated With Hemodialysis: A Multinational Cohort Study

Background Dental disease is more extensive in adults with chronic kidney disease, but whether dental health and behaviors are associated with survival in the setting of hemodialysis is unknown. Study Design Prospective multinational cohort. Setting & Participants 4,205 adults treated with long-term hemodialysis, 2010 to 2012 (Oral Diseases in Hemodialysis [ORAL-D] Study). Predictors Dental health as assessed by a standardized dental examination using World Health Organization guidelines and personal oral care, including edentulousness; decayed, missing, and filled teeth index; teeth brushing and flossing; and dental health consultation. Outcomes All-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 12 months after dental assessment. Measurements Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models fitted with shared frailty to account for clustering of mortality risk within countries. Results During a mean follow-up of 22.1 months, 942 deaths occurred, including 477 cardiovascular deaths. Edentulousness (adjusted HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.10-1.51) and decayed, missing, or filled teeth score ≥ 14 (adjusted HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.33-2.17) were associated with early all-cause mortality, while dental flossing, using mouthwash, brushing teeth daily, spending at least 2 minutes on oral hygiene daily, changing a toothbrush at least every 3 months, and visiting a dentist within the past 6 months (adjusted HRs of 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32-0.85], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.64-0.97], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.99], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65-0.95], and 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65-0.96], respectively) were associated with better survival. Results for cardiovascular mortality were similar. Limitations Convenience sample of clinics. Conclusions In adults treated with hemodialysis, poorer dental health was associated with early death, whereas preventive dental health practices were associated with longer survival

Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilisers for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease

BackgroundAnaemia occurs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is more prevalent with lower levels of kidney function. Anaemia in CKD is associated with death related to cardiovascular (CV) disease and infection. Established treatments include erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions. Oral hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF) stabilisers are now available to manage anaemia in people with CKD.ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the benefits and potential harms of HIF stabilisers for the management of anaemia in people with CKD.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 22 November 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to our review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating hypoxia-inducible factors stabilisers compared to placebo, standard care, ESAs or iron supplementation in people with CKD were included.Data collection and analysisFive authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects pair-wise meta-analysis and expressed as a relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE.Main resultsWe included 51 studies randomising 30,994 adults. These studies compared HIF stabilisers to either placebo or an ESA.Compared to placebo, HIF stabiliser therapy had uncertain effects on CV death (10 studies, 1114 participants): RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 70.21; very low certainty evidence), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (3 studies, 822 participants): RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.36; I-2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), probably decreases the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (8 studies, 4329 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60; I-2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and increases the proportion of patients reaching the target haemoglobin (Hb) (10 studies, 5102 participants): RR 8.36, 95% CI 6.42 to 10.89; I-2 = 37%; moderate certainty evidence).Compared to ESAs, HIF stabiliser therapy may make little or no difference to CV death (17 studies, 10,340 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; I-2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), nonfatal MI (7 studies, 7765 participants): RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; I-2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), and nonfatal stroke (5 studies, 7285 participants): RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.56; I-2 = 8%; low certainty evidence), and had uncertain effects on fatigue (2 studies, 3471 participants): RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; I-2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence). HIF stabiliser therapy probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (11 studies, 10,786 participants): RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; I-2 = 25%; moderate certainty evidence), but may make little or no diIerence on the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb (14 studies, 4601 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; I-2 = 70%; low certainty evidence), compared to ESA.The effect of HIF stabilisers on hospitalisation for heart failure, peripheral arterial events, loss of unassisted dialysis vascular access patency, access intervention, cancer, infection, pulmonary hypertension and diabetic nephropathy was uncertain.None of the included studies reported life participation. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported.Authors' conclusionsHIF stabiliser management of anaemia had uncertain effects on CV death, fatigue, death (any cause), CV outcomes, and kidney failure compared to placebo or ESAs. Compared to placebo or ESAs, HIF stabiliser management of anaemia probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusions, and probably increased the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb when compared to placebo

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

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

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

Background: Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants). Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. Data collection and analysis: Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main results: We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy. Authors\u27 conclusions: Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review

Glucose targets for preventing diabetic kidney disease and its progression

Background: Diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) around the world. Blood pressure lowering and glucose control are used to reduce diabetes-associated disability including kidney failure. However there is a lack of an overall evidence summary of the optimal target range for blood glucose control to prevent kidney failure. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intensive (HbA1c < 7% or fasting glucose levels < 120 mg/dL versus standard glycaemic control (HbA1c â\u89¥ 7% or fasting glucose levels â\u89¥ 120 mg/dL for preventing the onset and progression of kidney disease among adults with diabetes. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 31 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials evaluating glucose-lowering interventions in which people (aged 14 year or older) with type 1 or 2 diabetes with and without kidney disease were randomly allocated to tight glucose control or less stringent blood glucose targets. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risks of bias, extracted data and checked the processes for accuracy. Outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular complications, doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), ESKD and proteinuria. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Main results: Fourteen studies involving 29,319 people with diabetes were included and 11 studies involving 29,141 people were included in our meta-analyses. Treatment duration was 56.7 months on average (range 6 months to 10 years). Studies included people with a range of kidney function. Incomplete reporting of key methodological details resulted in uncertain risks of bias in many studies. Using GRADE assessment, we had moderate confidence in the effects of glucose lowering strategies on ESKD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and progressive protein leakage by kidney disease and low or very low confidence in effects of treatment on death related to cardiovascular complications and doubling of serum creatinine (SCr). For the primary outcomes, tight glycaemic control may make little or no difference to doubling of SCr compared with standard control (4 studies, 26,874 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.11; I2= 73%, low certainty evidence), development of ESKD (4 studies, 23,332 participants: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; I2= 52%; low certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (9 studies, 29,094 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.13; I2= 50%; moderate certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 studies, 23,673 participants: RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.92; I2= 85%; low certainty evidence), or sudden death (4 studies, 5913 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.57; I2= 85%; very low certainty evidence). People who received treatment to achieve tighter glycaemic control probably experienced lower risks of non-fatal myocardial infarction (5 studies, 25,596 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; I2= 46%, moderate certainty evidence), onset of microalbuminuria (4 studies, 19,846 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.93; I2= 61%, moderate certainty evidence), and progression of microalbuminuria (5 studies, 13,266 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93; I2= 75%, moderate certainty evidence). In absolute terms, tight versus standard glucose control treatment in 1,000 adults would lead to between zero and two people avoiding non-fatal myocardial infarction, while seven adults would avoid experiencing new-onset albuminuria and two would avoid worsening albuminuria. Authors' conclusions: This review suggests that people who receive intensive glycaemic control for treatment of diabetes had comparable risks of kidney failure, death and major cardiovascular events as people who received less stringent blood glucose control, while experiencing small clinical benefits on the onset and progression of microalbuminuria and myocardial infarction. The adverse effects of glycaemic management are uncertain. Based on absolute treatment effects, the clinical impact of targeting an HbA1c < 7% or blood glucose < 6.6 mmol/L is unclear and the potential harms of this treatment approach are largely unmeasured

Effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake in patients with chronic kidney disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background & aims: Dietary and supplemental long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) have shown vascular benefits for the general population, but effects among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are largely uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effects of n-3 PUFA intake among patients with CKD. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL through January 12, 2018. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials evaluating n-3 PUFA intake (supplementation or dietary) compared with placebo, standard care, or other treatment, on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, end stage kidney disease (ESKD), acute transplant rejection, and allograft loss. Risks of bias and evidence certainty were assessed using Cochrane and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation processes. Results: Sixty trials (4129 participants) were eligible, all of supplementation, with a median follow-up of 6 months. Low to very low certainty evidence suggested that n-3 PUFA supplementation reduced cardiovascular death for participants on hemodialysis (39 events; relative risk (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23–0.89), prevented ESKD (29 events; RR 0.30, CI 0.09–0.98) in participants with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, and made little or no difference in all-cause mortality (215 events; RR 1.05, CI 0.84–1.33), acute transplant rejection (188 events; RR 0.98, CI 0.80–1.21) or allograft loss (39 events; RR 0.98, CI 0.54–1.81]). Risk of bleeding (44 events; RR 1.40, CI 0.78–2.49) and gastrointestinal side-effects (103 events; RR 1.14, CI 0.79–1.67) were uncertain. Conclusions: n-3 PUFA supplementation may reduce cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis but it is uncertain whether supplementation prevents mortality or ESKD in patients with CKD

Calcifediol supplementation in adults on hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risks of mortality in people with chronic kidney disease. The benefits and harm of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality are unknown. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of calcifediol in reducing mortality&nbsp;in patients with vitamin D insufficiency on hemodialysis compared to no additional therapy

COGNITIVE-HD study: Protocol of an observational study of neurocognitive functioning and association with clinical outcomes in adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with haemodialysis

Introduction: The prevalence of cognitive impairment may be increased in adults with end-stage kidney disease compared with the general population. However, the specific patterns of cognitive impairment and association of cognitive dysfunction with activities of daily living and clinical outcomes (including withdrawal from treatment) among haemodialysis patients remain incompletely understood. The COGNITIVE impairment in adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with HemoDialysis (COGNITIVE-HD) study aims to characterise the age-adjusted and education-adjusted patterns of cognitive impairment (using comprehensive testing for executive function, perceptual-motor function, language, learning and memory, and complex attention) in patients on haemodialysis and association with clinical outcomes. Methods and analysis: A prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of 750 adults with end-stage kidney disease treated with long-term haemodialysis has been recruited within haemodialysis centres in Italy ( July 2013 to April 2014). Testing for neurocognitive function was carried out by a trained psychologist at baseline to assess cognitive functioning. The primary study factor is cognitive impairment and secondary study factors will be specific domains of cognitive function. The primary outcome will be total mortality. Secondary outcomes will be cause-specific mortality, major cardiovascular events, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, institutionalisation, and withdrawal from treatment at 12 months. Ethics and dissemination: This protocol was approved before study conduct by the following responsible ethics committees: Catania (approval reference 186/BE; 26/09/2013), Agrigento ( protocol numbers 61-62; 28/6/2013), USL Roma C (CE 39217; 24/6/2013), USL Roma F ( protocol number 0041708; 23/7/2013), USL Latina ( protocol number 20090/A001/ 2011; 12/7/2013), Trapani ( protocol number 3413; 16/ 7/2013) and Brindisi ( protocol number 40259; 6/6/ 2013). All participants have provided written and informed consent and can withdraw from the study at any time. The findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and national and international conference presentations and to the participants through communication within the dialysis network in which this study is conducted