Search

High-dose haemodiafiltration has been shown, in a randomised clinical trial, to result in a 23% lower risk of mortality for patients with kidney failure when compared with conventional high-flux haemodialysis. Nevertheless, whether treatment effects differ across subgroups, whether a dose–response relationship with convection volume exists, and the effects on cause-specific mortality remain unclear. The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to compare the effects of haemodiafiltration and standard haemodialysis on all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

In the CONVINCE trial, the primary analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for patients receiving high-dose hemodiafiltration (HDF) as compared with high-flux hemodialysis (HD). A secondary objective was to evaluate effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL); assessed in eight domains (physical function, cognitive function, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, pain interference, social participation) applying instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) before randomization and every three months thereafter. In total 1360 adults with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease, eligible to receive high-flux HDF (23 liters or more), were randomized (1:1); 84% response rate to all questionnaires. Both groups reported a continuous deterioration in all HRQoL domains. Overall, raw score changes from baseline were more favorable in the HDF group, resulting in a significant omnibus test after a median observation period of 30 months. Most relevant single raw score differences were reported for cognitive function. Patients receiving HDF reported a decline of -0.95 units (95% confidence interval - 2.23 to +0.34) whereas HD treated patients declined by -3.90 units (-5.28 to - 2.52). A joint model, adjusted for mortality differences, utilizing all quarterly assessments, identified a significantly slower HRQoL decline in physical function, cognitive function, pain interference, and social participation for the HDF group. Their physical health summary score declined -0.46 units/year slower compared to the HD group. Thus, the CONVINCE trial showed a beneficial effect of high-dose hemodiafiltration for survival as well as a moderate positive effect on patients’ quality of life, most pronounced with respect to their cognitive function.

Background: Central venous catheters (CVC) remain a commonly used vascular access option in haemodialysis, despite guidelines advising to preferably use arteriovenous fistulae. Compared to younger patients, the risk-benefit ratio of CVC in older patients might be more beneficial, but previous studies mainly focussed on catheter-related bacteraemia and/or assessed tunnelled CVC (TCVC) only. This study’s aim was to compare all catheter-related infections and malfunctions in older patients with younger patients using all CVC subtypes.Materials and methods: We used data from DUCATHO, a multicentre observational cohort study in The Netherlands. All adult patients in whom a CVC was placed for haemodialysis between 2012 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of catheter-related infections, comparing patients aged ⩾70 years with patients aged <70 years (reference). As secondary endpoints, catheter malfunctions and catheter removal due to either infection or malfunction were assessed. Using Cox proportional hazards and recurrent events modelling, hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with adjustment of prespecified confounders. Additionally, endpoints were assessed for non-tunnelled CVC (NTCVC) and TCVC separately.Results: A total of 1595 patients with 2731 CVC (66.5% NTCVC, 33.1% TCVC) were included. Of these patients, 1001 (62.8%) were aged <70 years and 594 (37.2%) ⩾70 years. No statistically significant difference was found for the occurrence of catheter-related infections (adjusted HR 0.80–95% CI 0.62–1.02), catheter malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94–95% CI 0.75–1.17) and catheter removal due to infection or malfunction (adjusted HR 0.94–95% CI 0.80–1.11). Results were comparable when assessing NTCVC and TCVC separately.Conclusion: Patients aged ⩾70 to <70 years have a comparable risk for the occurrence of catheter-related infections and catheter malfunction. These findings may help when discussing treatment options with older patients starting haemodialysis and may inform the current debate on the best vascular access for these patients.

Background: The mental health of dialysis patients during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been modulated by dialysis modality. Studies comparing mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients during the first 2 years of the pandemic are lacking. Methods: We conducted repeated cross-sectional and multivariable regression analyses to compare the mental health of in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients from March 2019 until August 2021 using data from the Dutch nOcturnal and hoME dialysis Study To Improve Clinical Outcomes. The study period was divided into one pre-pandemic and six 3-month pandemic periods (period 1–period 6). Mental health was assessed with the Mental Component Summary score of the 12-item Short Form health survey and mental symptoms of the Dialysis Symptom Index. Results: We included 1274 patients (968 on in-center hemodialysis and 306 on peritoneal dialysis). Mental Component Summary scores did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. In contrast, in-center hemodialysis patients more often reported nervousness during period 3 (27% vs 15%, P= 0.04), irritability and anxiety during period 3 (31% vs 18%, P= 0.03, 26% vs. 9%, P= 0.002, respectively) and period 4 (34% vs 22%, P= 0.04, 22% vs 11%, P= 0.03, respectively), and sadness in period 4 (38% vs 26%, P= 0.04) and period 5 (37% vs 22%, P= 0.009). Dialysis modality was independently associated with mental symptoms. Conclusions: In-center hemodialysis patients more often experienced mental symptoms compared to peritoneal dialysis patients from September 2020 to June 2021, which corresponds to the second lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health-related quality-of-life did not differ between in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. Trial registration number: Netherlands Trial Register NL6519, date of registration: 22 August, 2017. Graphical abstract:

Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) may be at increased risk of adverse COVID‐19 outcomes, due to prevalent comorbidities and immunosuppressed status. Given the global differences in COVID‐19 policies and treatments, a robust assessment of all evidence is necessary to evaluate the clinical course of COVID‐19 in KTR. Studies on mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) in KTR in the World Health Organization COVID‐19 database were systematically reviewed. We selected studies published between March 2020 and January 18th 2021, including at least five KTR with COVID‐19. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed to calculate overall proportions, including 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were performed on time of submission, geographical region, sex, age, time after transplantation, comorbidities, and treatments. We included 74 studies with 5559 KTR with COVID‐19 (64.0% males, mean age 58.2 years, mean 73 months after transplantation) in total. The risk of mortality, 23% (95% CI: 21%–27%), and AKI, 50% (95% CI: 44%–56%), is high among KTR with COVID‐19, regardless of sex, age and comorbidities, underlining the call to accelerate vaccination programs for KTR. Given the suboptimal reporting across the identified studies, we urge researchers to consistently report anthropometrics, kidney function at baseline and discharge, (changes in) immunosuppressive therapy, AKI, and renal outcome among KTR. This systematic review and meta‐analysis on COVID‐19 in kidney transplant recipients reveals high global mortality rates and provides recommendations for reporting of studies in future pandemics.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) may be at increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes, due to prevalent comorbidities and immunosuppressed status. Given the global differences in COVID-19 policies and treatments, a robust assessment of all evidence is necessary to evaluate the clinical course of COVID-19 in KTR. Studies on mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) in KTR in the World Health Organization COVID-19 database were systematically reviewed. We selected studies published between March 2020 and January 18th 2021, including at least five KTR with COVID-19. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate overall proportions, including 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were performed on time of submission, geographical region, sex, age, time after transplantation, comorbidities, and treatments. We included 74 studies with 5559 KTR with COVID-19 (64.0% males, mean age 58.2 years, mean 73 months after transplantation) in total. The risk of mortality, 23% (95% CI: 21%–27%), and AKI, 50% (95% CI: 44%–56%), is high among KTR with COVID-19, regardless of sex, age and comorbidities, underlining the call to accelerate vaccination programs for KTR. Given the suboptimal reporting across the identified studies, we urge researchers to consistently report anthropometrics, kidney function at baseline and discharge, (changes in) immunosuppressive therapy, AKI, and renal outcome among KTR.

Preclinical and clinical studies on the administration of bone marrow-derived cells to restore perfusion show conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on preclinical studies to assess the efficacy of bone marrow-derived cells in the hind limb ischemia model and identify possible determinants of therapeutic efficacy. In vivo animal studies were identified using a systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE on 10 January 2022. 85 studies were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. Study characteristics and outcome data on relative perfusion were extracted. The pooled mean difference was estimated using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. We found a significant increase in perfusion in the affected limb after administration of bone marrow-derived cells compared to that in the control groups. However, there was a high heterogeneity between studies, which could not be explained. There was a high degree of incomplete reporting across studies. We therefore conclude that the current quality of preclinical research is insufficient (low certainty level as per GRADE assessment) to identify specific factors that might improve human clinical trials.

De Nederlandse richtlijn prostaatkanker is omgezet in beslisbomen, routekaarten dus. Ze staan sinds het najaar van 2018 als digitale beslisondersteuning in Oncoguide. Uit de beslisbomen volgt een informatiestandaard die eenheid van taal creëert en het mogelijk maakt data eenvoudiger te delen en hergebruiken. Door beslisbomen te voorzien van individuele patiënt- en ziektekenmerken leidt Oncoguide de zorgprofessional stap voor stap naar een behandeladvies. Een beslisondersteunende toolzoals Oncoguide geeft een behandeladvies op basis van de landelijke richtlijn, waarvan uiteraard met goede argumentatie afgeweken kan worden. Om de beslisondersteuning tijdens een multidisciplinair overleg (MDO) toepasbaar te maken en patiëntengegevens direct vanuit het MDO in het elektronisch patiëntendossier (EPD) te importeren, is gestructureerde verslaglegging een voorwaarde. The Dutch prostate cancer guidelines have been converted as a route map into decision trees that will be implemented in a digital support system named Oncoguide in the autumn of 2018. Based on the decision trees an information standard can be constructed which creates unity of language and facilitates data sharing and reuse of data. By providing individual patient and disease characteristics to the decision trees, Oncoguide directs the healthcare professional step by step to a treatment advice. A decision support tool such as Oncoguide provides a treatment advice based on the national guidelines. To make the decision support applicable during a MDT and to import patient data directly from the multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) into the EPD, synoptic reporting is required.

Treatment decisions are challenging in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression after or under docetaxel. The current review systematically searched the published literature on all treatment options, and assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence. It found the best available evidence for effective prolongation of overall survival and progression-free survival for abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone and enzalutamide versus placebo. Other treatment modalities could be beneficial for individual patients by taking into consideration the: selection criteria of the randomized clinical trials, risk of bias, subgroup analyses, and quality of life and adverse events. Further research is needed to determine the sequence, timing asnd combination of different treatments.

As kidney diseases affect ∼10% of the world population, understanding the underlying mechanisms and developing therapeutic interventions are of high importance. Although animal models have enhanced knowledge of disease mechanisms, human (patho-)physiology may not be adequately represented in animals. Developments in microfluidics and renal cell biology have enabled the development of dynamic models to study renal (patho-)physiology in vitro. Allowing inclusion of human cells and combining different organ models, such as kidney-on-a-chip (KoC) models, enable the refinement and reduction of animal experiments. We systematically reviewed the methodological quality, applicability and effectiveness of kidney-based (multi-)organ-on-a-chip models, and describe the state-of-the-art, strengths and limitations, and opportunities regarding basic research and implementation of these models. We conclude that KoC models have evolved to complex models capable of mimicking systemic (patho-)physiological processes. Commercial chips and human induced pluripotent stem cells and organoids are important for KoC models to study disease mechanisms and assess drug effects, even in a personalized manner. This contributes to the Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of animal models for kidney research. A lack of reporting of intra- and inter-laboratory reproducibility and translational capacity currently hampers implementation of these models.

The therapeutic approach of bladder cancer strongly determines its prognosis. We describe the treatments and outcomes for a Spanish cohort of patients with bladder cancer for the first 12 months after diagnosis and identify the factors that influenced the decision to undergo the treatment received. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, cohort study including primary bladder cancer patients during the first 12 months after diagnosis. The clinical outcomes were performance status (ECOG), adverse events and any cause of mortality. We stratified the analysis by factors that might influence the treatments received. We conducted univariate and multivariable logistic regression models to assess which patient and tumor characteristics were associated with receiving adjuvant treatment in the subgroup of noninvasive bladder cancer patients. In total, 314 patients were included (85% men; 53.8% >70 years) in 7 tertiary Spanish hospitals; 82.2% had a noninvasive urothelial bladder cancer (NMIBC). Patients received mostly surgery plus adjuvant therapy (67.7%). BCG (32.8% patients) was the most frequently administered adjuvant therapy, followed by intravesical chemotherapy (17.8% patients) and radiotherapy (10.8%). The variability of administered treatments among hospitals was low. Patients with NMIBC were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy if they had a higher educational level, some comorbidities and a high-grade tumor. The number of fully active patients (ECOG 0) significantly decreased during the first year of follow-up from 58% to 36 % (OR: 2.41, 95%CI 1.82–3.20); at 12-month follow-up 10.8% patients had died from any cause. In conclusion, most of the patients had a NMIBC. Surgery alone or plus adjuvant therapy were the commonest curative options of bladder cancer. BCG therapy was the adjuvant therapy most frequently administered. Higher educational level, presence of comorbidities and a high-grade tumor were associated with adjuvant therapy. Patient performance status was worsening over time. Almost 1 of 10 patients died during the first year of follow-up.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).Study selectionTrials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.ResultsAs of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) −4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD −4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD −3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD −4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.ConclusionIn patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials—six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesUS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database, which includes 25 electronic databases and six additional Chinese databases to 20 July 2020.Study selectionRandomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian random effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.Results23 randomised controlled trials were included in the analysis performed on 26 June 2020. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low because of risk of bias (lack of blinding) and serious imprecision. Glucocorticoids were the only intervention with evidence for a reduction in death compared with standard care (risk difference 37 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 63 fewer to 11 fewer, moderate certainty) and mechanical ventilation (31 fewer per 1000 patients, 47 fewer to 9 fewer, moderate certainty). These estimates are based on direct evidence; network estimates for glucocorticoids compared with standard care were less precise because of network heterogeneity. Three drugs might reduce symptom duration compared with standard care: hydroxychloroquine (mean difference −4.5 days, low certainty), remdesivir (−2.6 days, moderate certainty), and lopinavir-ritonavir (−1.2 days, low certainty). Hydroxychloroquine might increase the risk of adverse events compared with the other interventions, and remdesivir probably does not substantially increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation. No other interventions included enough patients to meaningfully interpret adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation.ConclusionGlucocorticoids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care. The effectiveness of most interventions is uncertain because most of the randomised controlled trials so far have been small and have important study limitations.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement.Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

ObjectiveTo develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument.DesignInstrument development and reliability study.Data sourcesInitial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument.ParticipantsWith the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates.Main outcome measuresCore credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined.ResultsThe credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors.ConclusionsResearchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.