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

Transesophageal echocardiography in children: New peephole to the heart

Markers of inflammation, including plasma C-reactive protein (CRP), are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and it has been suggested that this association is causal. However, the relationship between inflammation and cardiovascular disease has not been extensively studied in patients with chronic kidney disease. To evaluate this, we used data from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) to assess associations between circulating CRP and LDL cholesterol levels and the risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes. Major vascular events were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, stroke or arterial revascularization, with an expanded outcome of vascular events of any type. Higher baseline CRP was associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (hazard ratio per 3x increase 1.28; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.38). Higher baseline LDL cholesterol was also associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (hazard ratio per 0.6 mmol/L higher LDL cholesterol; 1.14, 1.06-1.22). Higher baseline CRP was associated with an increased risk of a range of non-vascular events (1.16, 1.12-1.21), but there was a weak inverse association between baseline LDL cholesterol and non-vascular events (0.96, 0.92-0.99). The efficacy of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin/ezetimibe on major vascular events, in the randomized comparison, was similar irrespective of CRP concentration at baseline. Thus, decisions to offer statin-based therapy to patients with chronic kidney disease should continue to be guided by their absolute risk of atherosclerotic events. Estimation of such risk may include plasma biomarkers of inflammation, but there is no evidence that the relative beneficial effects of reducing LDL cholesterol depends on plasma CRP concentration

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 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

Hospitalization and mortality following non-attendance for hemodialysis according to dialysis day of the week : a European cohort study

Background The extension of the interdialytic interval due to due to dialysis session non-attendance varies according to which session of the week the patient misses. The impact of this on subsequent hospitalization and mortality is unknown. Methods The ARO cohort study prospectively collected data from hemodialysis patients across 15 European countries on demography, comorbidity, laboratory, hospitalisation, mortality and individual hemodialysis sessions from 2007 to 2014. Event rates for death and hospitalisation according to dialysis day of the week were calculated for patients who attended the three previous scheduled hemodialysis sessions, who then on the next scheduled dialysis day either attended or did not attend. The hazard ratio for these events following non-attendance for the first compared to the second dialysis session of the week was estimated using Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for patient demographics. Results 3.8 million hemodialysis sessions in 9397 patients were analysed. The non-attendance rates for Monday/Wednesday/Friday sessions were 0.8, 0.9% & 1.4% respectively, and for Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday sessions were 0.6, 1.0% & 1.2% respectively. Compared to those who attended, for the 48–72 h between non-attendance and the next scheduled haemodialysis session, mortality significantly increased from 4.86 to 51.9/100 pt-yrs and hospitalisation increased from 0.58 to 2.1/yr. As time from the two-day break increased, the risk associated with non-attendance lessened: compared to missing the second hemodialysis session, missing the first session had a hazard ratio for mortality of 2.04 (95% CI 1.27–3.29), and for hospitalisation 1.78 (95% CI 1.29–2.47). In patients who attended their scheduled dialysis session and the three preceding, after the two-day break there were absolute increases in mortality (8.3 vs. 4.9/100 pt-yrs) and hospitalisation (1.0 vs. 0.6/yr for the rest of the week) comparable to previous studies. Conclusions In addition to hospitalisation and mortality increases seen after the two-day break, additional harm may be manifested in the greater increases in mortality and hospitalisation observed after non-attendance for the first hemodialysis session after the two-day break compared to missing other sessions

Effect of simplicity and attractiveness on route selection for different journey types

This study investigated the effects of six attributes, associated with simplicity or attractiveness, on route preference for three pedestrian journey types (everyday, leisure and tourist). Using stated choice preference experiments with computer generated scenes, participants were asked to choose one of a pair of routes showing either two levels of the same attribute (experiment 1) or different attributes (experiment 2). Contrary to predictions, vegetation was the most influential for both everyday and leisure journeys, and land use ranked much lower than expected in both cases. Turns ranked higher than decision points for everyday journeys as predicted, but the positions of both were lowered by initially unranked attributes. As anticipated, points of interest were most important for tourist trips, with the initially unranked attributes having less influence. This is the first time so many attributes have been compared directly, providing new information about the importance of the attributes for different journeys. © 2014 Springer International Publishing

Lopinavir–ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Lopinavir–ritonavir has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of in vitro activity,preclinical studies, and observational studies. Here, we report the results of a randomised trial to assess whether lopinavir–ritonavir improves outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, a range of possible treatments was compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus lopinavir–ritonavir (400 mg and 100 mg, respectively) by mouth for 10 days or until discharge (or one of the otherRECOVERY treatment groups: hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone, or azithromycin) using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. Randomisation to usual care was twice that of any of the active treatment groups (eg, 2:1 in favour of usual care if the patient was eligible for only one active group, 2:1:1 if the patient was eligible for two active groups). The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses weredone on an intention-to-treat basis in all randomly assigned participants. The trial is registered with ISRCTN,50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between March 19, 2020, and June 29, 2020, 1616 patients were randomly allocated to receive lopinavir–ritonavir and 3424 patients to receive usual care. Overall, 374 (23%) patients allocated to lopinavir–ritonavir and 767 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·91–1·17; p=0·60). Resultswere consistent across all prespecified subgroups of patients. We observed no significant difference in time until discharge alive from hospital (median 11 days [IQR 5 to >28] in both groups) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·91–1·05; p=0·53). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion who met the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·99–1·20; p=0·092).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, lopinavir–ritonavir was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality, duration of hospital stay, or risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death. These findings do not support the use of lopinavir–ritonavir for treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Funding Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research

The kidney failure risk equation:evaluation of novel input variables including eGFR estimated using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation in 59 cohorts

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) uses age, sex, GFR, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) to predict 2- and 5-year risk of kidney failure in populations with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . However, the CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine equation for eGFR is now recommended for use but has not been fully tested in the context of KFRE. In 59 cohorts comprising 312,424 patients with CKD, the authors assessed the predictive performance and calibration associated with the use of the CKD-EPI 2021 equation and whether additional variables and accounting for the competing risk of death improves the KFRE's performance. The KFRE generally performed well using the CKD-EPI 2021 eGFR in populations with eGFR <45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and was not improved by adding the 2-year prior eGFR slope and cardiovascular comorbidities. BACKGROUND: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) uses age, sex, GFR, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) to predict kidney failure risk in people with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . METHODS: Using 59 cohorts with 312,424 patients with CKD, we tested several modifications to the KFRE for their potential to improve the KFRE: using the CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine equation for eGFR, substituting 1-year average ACR for single-measure ACR and 1-year average eGFR in participants with high eGFR variability, and adding 2-year prior eGFR slope and cardiovascular comorbidities. We also assessed calibration of the KFRE in subgroups of eGFR and age before and after accounting for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: The KFRE remained accurate and well calibrated overall using the CKD-EPI 2021 eGFR equation. The other modifications did not improve KFRE performance. In subgroups of eGFR 45-59 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and in older adults using the 5-year time horizon, the KFRE demonstrated systematic underprediction and overprediction, respectively. We developed and tested a new model with a spline term in eGFR and incorporating the competing risk of mortality, resulting in more accurate calibration in those specific subgroups but not overall. CONCLUSIONS: The original KFRE is generally accurate for eGFR <45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 when using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation. Incorporating competing risk methodology and splines for eGFR may improve calibration in low-risk settings with longer time horizons. Including historical averages, eGFR slopes, or a competing risk design did not meaningfully alter KFRE performance in most circumstances

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.

Mild-to-moderate kidney dysfunction and cardiovascular disease: observational and mendelian randomization analyses.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular events. It is unknown, however, whether mild-to-moderate kidney dysfunction is causally related to coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. METHODS: Observational analyses were conducted using individual-level data from 4 population data sources (Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, EPIC-CVD [European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Cardiovascular Disease Study], Million Veteran Program, and UK Biobank), comprising 648 135 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline, yielding 42 858 and 15 693 incident CHD and stroke events, respectively, during 6.8 million person-years of follow-up. Using a genetic risk score of 218 variants for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), we conducted Mendelian randomization analyses involving 413 718 participants (25 917 CHD and 8622 strokes) in EPIC-CVD, Million Veteran Program, and UK Biobank. RESULTS: There were U-shaped observational associations of creatinine-based eGFR with CHD and stroke, with higher risk in participants with eGFR values 105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2, compared with those with eGFR between 60 and 105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. Mendelian randomization analyses for CHD showed an association among participants with eGFR 105 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2. Results were not materially different after adjustment for factors associated with the eGFR genetic risk score, such as lipoprotein(a), triglycerides, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure. Mendelian randomization results for stroke were nonsignificant but broadly similar to those for CHD. CONCLUSIONS: In people without manifest cardiovascular disease or diabetes, mild-to-moderate kidney dysfunction is causally related to risk of CHD, highlighting the potential value of preventive approaches that preserve and modulate kidney function

Baricitinib in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial and updated meta-analysis

Background: We aimed to evaluate the use of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1–2 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus baricitinib 4 mg once daily by mouth for 10 days or until discharge if sooner (baricitinib group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A meta-analysis was done, which included the results from the RECOVERY trial and all previous randomised controlled trials of baricitinib or other JAK inhibitor in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The RECOVERY trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936) and is ongoing. Findings: Between Feb 2 and Dec 29, 2021, from 10 852 enrolled, 8156 patients were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus baricitinib versus usual care alone. At randomisation, 95% of patients were receiving corticosteroids and 23% were receiving tocilizumab (with planned use within the next 24 h recorded for a further 9%). Overall, 514 (12%) of 4148 patients allocated to baricitinib versus 546 (14%) of 4008 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (age-adjusted rate ratio 0·87; 95% CI 0·77–0·99; p=0·028). This 13% proportional reduction in mortality was somewhat smaller than that seen in a meta-analysis of eight previous trials of a JAK inhibitor (involving 3732 patients and 425 deaths), in which allocation to a JAK inhibitor was associated with a 43% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·57; 95% CI 0·45–0·72). Including the results from RECOVERY in an updated meta-analysis of all nine completed trials (involving 11 888 randomly assigned patients and 1485 deaths) allocation to baricitinib or another JAK inhibitor was associated with a 20% proportional reduction in mortality (rate ratio 0·80; 95% CI 0·72–0·89; p<0·0001). In RECOVERY, there was no significant excess in death or infection due to non-COVID-19 causes and no significant excess of thrombosis, or other safety outcomes. Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, baricitinib significantly reduced the risk of death but the size of benefit was somewhat smaller than that suggested by previous trials. The total randomised evidence to date suggests that JAK inhibitors (chiefly baricitinib) reduce mortality in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 by about one-fifth. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research