Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients

Background The risk of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection in solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in the frequent use of prophylaxis with the aim of preventing the clinical syndrome associated with CMV infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008. Objectives To determine the benefits and harms of antiviral medications to prevent CMV disease and all‐cause mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library to February 2004 for the first version of this review. The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register was searched to February 2007 and to July 2011 for the first and current updates of the review without language restriction. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs comparing antiviral medications with placebo or no treatment, comparing different antiviral medications and comparing different regimens of the same antiviral medications in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Studies examining pre‐emptive therapy were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and by mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random‐effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta‐regression were performed using restricted maximum‐likelihood to estimate the between study variance. Multivariate meta‐regression was performed to investigate whether the results were altered after allowing for differences in drugs used, organ transplanted, and recipient CMV serostatus at the time of transplantation. Main results We identified 37 studies (4342 participants). Risk of bias attributes were poorly performed or reported with low risk of bias reported for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective outcome reporting in 25% or fewer studies. Prophylaxis with aciclovir, ganciclovir or valaciclovir compared with placebo or no treatment significantly reduced the risk for CMV disease (19 studies; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52), CMV infection (17 studies; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.77), and all‐cause mortality (17 studies; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92) primarily due to reduced mortality from CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78). Prophylaxis reduced the risk of herpes simplex and herpes zoster disease, bacterial and protozoal infections but not fungal infection, acute rejection or graft loss. Meta‐regression showed no significant difference in the relative benefit of treatment (risk of CMV disease or all‐cause mortality) by organ transplanted or CMV serostatus; no conclusions were possible for CMV negative recipients of negative organs. Neurological dysfunction was more common with ganciclovir and valaciclovir compared with placebo/no treatment. In direct comparison studies, ganciclovir was more effective than aciclovir in preventing CMV disease (7 studies; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60) and leucopenia was more common with aciclovir. Valganciclovir and IV ganciclovir were as effective as oral ganciclovir. The efficacy and adverse effects of valganciclovir/ganciclovir did not differ from valaciclovir in three small studies. Extended duration prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of CMV disease compared with three months therapy (2 studies; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.35). Leucopenia was more common with extended duration prophylaxis but severe treatment associated adverse effects did not differ between extended and three month durations of treatment. Authors' conclusions Prophylaxis with antiviral medications reduces CMV disease and CMV‐associated mortality in solid organ transplant recipients. These data suggest that antiviral prophylaxis should be used routinely in CMV positive recipients and in CMV negative recipients of CMV positive organ transplants

Immunoglobulins, Vaccines or Interferon for Preventing Cytomegalovirus Disease in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most common virus causing disease and death in solid organ transplant recipients during the first six months post-transplant. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated the efficacy of antiviral medications used prophylactically or pre-emptively in preventing CMV disease. In this review the efficacy of older agents (immunoglobulins (IgG), anti CMV vaccines and interferon) are examined. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of IgG, anti CMV vaccines or interferon for preventing symptomatic CMV disease in solid organ transplant recipients. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction. Date of last search: December 2005 Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing IgG, anti CMV vaccine or interferon with placebo or no treatment, IgG alone or combined with antiviral medications with antiviral medications or IgG alone in recipients of any solid organ transplant. Data collection and analysis: Two of four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from each trial. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: Thirty seven trials (2185 participants) were included in this review. There was no significant difference in the risk for CMV disease (16 trials, 770 patients: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.05), CMV infection (14 trials, 775 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10) or all-cause mortality (8 trials, 502 patients: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.03) with IgG compared with placebo/no treatment. However IgG significantly reduced the risk of death from CMV disease (6 trials, 346 patients: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80). There was no difference in the risk for CMV disease (4 trials, 298 patients: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.86), CMV infection (4 trials, 298 patients: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.52) or all-cause mortality (2 trials, 217 patients: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.29) between antiviral medication combined with IgG and antiviral medication alone. There was no significant difference in the risk of CMV disease with anti CMV vaccine or interferon compared with placebo or no treatment. Authors' conclusions: Currently there are no indications for IgG in the prophylaxis of CMV disease in recipients of solid organ transplants

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

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

Treatment for lupus nephritis

BackgroundCyclophosphamide, in combination with corticosteroids has been used to induce remission in proliferative lupus nephritis, the most common kidney manifestation of the multisystem disease, systemic lupus erythematosus. Cyclophosphamide therapy has reduced mortality from over 70% in the 1950s and 1960s to less than 10% in recent years. Cyclophosphamide combined with corticosteroids preserves kidney function but is only partially effective and may cause ovarian failure, infection and bladder toxicity. Several new agents, including mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), suggest reduced toxicity with equivalent rates of remission. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of different immunosuppressive treatments in biopsy-proven proliferative lupus nephritis.Search methodsFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (up to 15 April 2012) through contact with the Trials' Search Coordinator using search terms relevant to this review.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any treatments for biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in both adult and paediatric patients with class III, IV, V + III and V + IV lupus nephritis were included. All immunosuppressive treatments were considered.Data collection and analysisData were abstracted and quality assessed independently by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) and measurements on continuous scales reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Main resultsWe identified 50 RCTs involving 2846 participants. Of these, 45 studies (2559 participants) investigated induction therapy, and six studies (514 participants), considered maintenance therapy.Compared with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide, MMF was as effective in achieving stable kidney function (5 studies, 523 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.18) and complete remission of proteinuria (6 studies, 686 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.58). No differences in mortality (7 studies, 710 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.98) or major infection (6 studies, 683 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68) were observed. A significant reduction in ovarian failure (2 studies, 498 participants: RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.80) and alopecia (2 studies, 522 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.86) was observed with MMF. In maintenance therapy, the risk of renal relapse (3 studies, 371 participants: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.71) was significantly higher with azathioprine compared with MMF. Multiple other interventions were compared but outcome data were relatively sparse. Overall study quality was variable. The internal validity of the design, conduct and analysis of the included RCTs was difficult to assess in some studies because of the omission of important methodological details. No study adequately reported all domains of the risk of bias assessment so that elements of internal bias may be present.Authors' conclusionsMMF is as effective as cyclophosphamide in inducing remission in lupus nephritis, but is safer with a lower risk of ovarian failure. MMF is more effective than azathioprine in maintenance therapy for preventing relapse with no increase in clinically important side effects. Adequately powered trials with long term follow-up are required to more accurately define the risks and eventual harms of specific treatment regimens

Patient-reported outcome measures for pain in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: A systematic review.

Pain is a common symptom in people with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), but it is assessed and reported inconsistently in research, and the validity of the measures remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to identify the characteristics, content, and psychometric properties of measures for pain used in ADPKD. We conducted a systematic review including all trials and observational studies that reported pain in people with ADPKD. Items from all measures were categorized into content and measurement dimensions of pain. We assessed the general characteristics and psychometric properties of all measures. 118 studies, we identified 26 measures: 12 (46%) measures were developed for a non-ADPKD population, 1 (4%) for chronic kidney disease, 2 (8%) for polycystic liver disease and 11 (42%) specifically for ADPKD. Ten anatomical sites were included, with the lower back the most common (10 measures [39%]), four measurement dimensions (intensity (23 [88%]), frequency (3 [12%]), temporality (2 [8%]), and sensory (21 [81%]), two pain types, nociceptive including visceral (15 [58%]) and somatic (5 [20%]), and neuropathic (2 [8%]), and twelve impact dimensions, where the most frequent was work (5 [31%]). The validation data for the measures were variable and only the ADPKD Impact Scale reported all psychometric domains. The measures for pain in ADPKD varied in terms of content and length, and most had not been validated in ADPKD. A standardized psychometrically robust measure that captures patient-important dimensions of pain is needed to evaluate and manage this debilitating complication of ADPKD

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.The project is funded by the Flinders University and the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, convened by the Australian Living Evidence Consortium, hosted by Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University supported by the Australian Government, Victorian Department of Health and Human Services, Ian Potter Foundation, Walter Cottman Endowment Fund (managed by Equity Trustees) and the Lord Mayor's Charitable Foundation). AT is supported by The University of Sydney Robinson Fellowship. ACM is supported by a Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (WT 2055214/Z/16/Z

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials

Antimicrobial agents for preventing peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an important therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease and is used in more than 200,000 such patients globally. However, its value is often limited by the development of infections such as peritonitis and exit-site and tunnel infections. Multiple strategies have been developed to reduce the risk of peritonitis including antibiotics, topical disinfectants to the exit site and antifungal agents. However, the effectiveness of these strategies has been variable and are based on a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The optimal preventive strategies to reduce the occurrence of peritonitis remain unclear.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.To evaluate the benefits and harms of antimicrobial strategies used to prevent peritonitis in PD patients.We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 October 2016 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.RCTs or quasi-RCTs in patients receiving chronic PD, which evaluated any antimicrobial agents used systemically or locally to prevent peritonitis or exit-site/tunnel infection were included.Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Thirty-nine studies, randomising 4435 patients, were included. Twenty additional studies have been included in this update. The risk of bias domains were often unclear or high; risk of bias was judged to be low in 19 (49%) studies for random sequence generation, 12 (31%) studies for allocation concealment, 22 (56%) studies for incomplete outcome reporting, and in 12 (31%) studies for selective outcome reporting. Blinding of participants and personnel was considered to be at low risk of bias in 8 (21%) and 10 studies (26%) for blinding of outcome assessors. It should be noted that blinding of participants and personnel was not possible in many of the studies because of the nature of the intervention or control treatment.The use of oral or topical antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment, had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 191 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.04) and the risk of peritonitis (5 studies, 395 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.19).The use of nasal antibiotic compared with placebo/no treatment had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.87) and the risk of peritonitis (3 studies, 338 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.31).Pre/perioperative intravenous vancomycin compared with no treatment may reduce the risk of early peritonitis (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61) but has an uncertain effect on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (1 study, 177 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.32).The use of topical disinfectant compared with standard care or other active treatment (antibiotic or other disinfectant) had uncertain effects on the risk of exit-site/tunnel infection (8 studies, 973 patients, low quality evidence, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33) and the risk of peritonitis (6 studies, 853 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06).Antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin/fluconazole compared with placebo/no treatment may reduce the risk of fungal peritonitis occurring after a patient has had an antibiotic course (2 studies, 817 patients, low quality evidence: RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.63).No intervention reduced the risk of catheter removal or replacement. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality. Only six studies enrolled 200 or more patients.In this update, we identified limited data from RCTs and quasi-RCTs which evaluated strategies to prevent peritonitis and exit-site/tunnel infections. This review demonstrates that pre/peri-operative intravenous vancomycin may reduce the risk of early peritonitis and that antifungal prophylaxis with oral nystatin or fluconazole reduces the risk of fungal peritonitis following an antibiotic course. However, no other antimicrobial interventions have proven efficacy. In particular, the use of nasal antibiotic to eradicate Staphylococcus aureus, had an uncertain effect on the risk of peritonitis and raises questions about the usefulness of this approach. Given the large number of patients on PD and the importance of peritonitis, the lack of adequately powered and high quality RCTs to inform decision making about strategies to prevent peritonitis is striking

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for dialysis patients

Background: Cardiovascular disease accounts for more than half the number of deaths among dialysis patients. The role of HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) in the treatment of dyslipidaemia in dialysis patients is unclear and their safety has not been established. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of statins in peritoneal dialysis (PD) and haemodialysis patients (HD). Search strategy: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register and handsearched reference lists of textbooks, articles and scientific proceedings. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing statins with placebo, no treatment or other hypolipidaemic agents in dialysis patients. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model after testing for heterogeneity. The results were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results: Fourteen studies (2086 patients) compared statins versus placebo or other lipid lowering agents. Compared to placebo, statins did not decrease all-cause mortality (10 studies, 1884 patients; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06) or cardiovascular mortality (9 studies, 1839 patients: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.40). There was a lower incidence of nonfatal cardiovascular events with statins compared to placebo in haemodialysis patients (1 study, 1255 patients; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). Compared with placebo, statin use was associated with a significantly lower end of treatment average total cholesterol (14 studies, 1823 patients; MD -42.61 mg/dL, 95% CI -53.38 to -31.84), LDL cholesterol (13 studies, 1801 patients; MD -43.06 mg/dL, 95% CI -53.78 to -32.35) and triglycerides (14 studies, 1823 patients: MD -24.01 mg/dL, 95% CI -47.29 to -0.72). There was similar occurrence of rhabdomyolysis and elevated liver function tests with statins in comparison to placebo. Authors' conclusions: Statins decreased cholesterol levels in dialysis patients similar to that of the general population. With the exception of one study, studies were of short duration and therefore the efficacy of statins in decreasing the mortality rate is still unclear. Statins appear to be safe in this high-risk population. Ongoing studies should provide more insight about the efficacy of statins in reducing mortality rates in dialysis patients. © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

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