Search

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is diagnosed when glomerular filtration rate (GFR) falls below 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) reaches ≥30 mg/g, as these two thresholds indicate a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular mortality. CKD is classified as mild, moderate or severe, based on GFR and UACR values, and the latter two classifications convey a high or very high cardiovascular risk, respectively. Additionally, CKD can be diagnosed based on abnormalities detected by histology or imaging. Lupus nephritis (LN) is a cause of CKD. Despite the high cardiovascular mortality of patients with LN, neither albuminuria nor CKD are discussed in the 2019 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association recommendations for the management of LN or the more recent 2022 EULAR recommendations for cardiovascular risk management in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Indeed, the proteinuria target values discussed in the recommendations may be present in patients with severe CKD and a very high cardiovascular risk who may benefit from guidance detailed in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. We propose that the recommendations should move from a conceptual framework of LN as an entity separate from CKD to a framework in which LN is considered a cause of CKD and evidence generated from large CKD trials applies unless demonstrated otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The clinical practice guideline Management of Obesity in Kidney Transplant Candidates and Recipients was developed to guide decision-making in caring for people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) living with obesity. The document considers the challenges in defining obesity, weighs interventions for treating obesity in kidney transplant candidates as well as recipients and reflects on the impact of obesity on the likelihood of wait-listing as well as its effect on transplant outcomes. It was designed to inform management decisions related to this topic and provide the backdrop for shared decision-making. This guideline was developed by the European Renal Association's Developing Education Science and Care for Renal Transplantation in European States working group. The group was supplemented with selected methodologists to supervise the project and provide methodological expertise in guideline development throughout the process. The guideline targets any healthcare professional treating or caring for people with ESKD being considered for kidney transplantation or having received a donor kidney. This includes nephrologists, transplant physicians, transplant surgeons, general practitioners, dialysis and transplant nurses. Development of this guideline followed an explicit process of evidence review. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and areas of future research are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies show that ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) is superior to office BP (oBP) measurements to predict target organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). We performed a systematic review aimed at determining the potential associations between BP recordings by different methods and renal and CV outcomes in this population. Methods Major medical databases were searched for studies enrolling adult KTRs undergoing 24-h ABPM compared with office or home BP measurements. The main outcomes were associations between different BP recordings and renal and CV outcomes. Additionally, any association between the circadian BP pattern (dipping/non-dipping status) and outcomes was assessed. Results Twenty-two studies (2078 participants) were reviewed. Among 12 studies collecting data on renal endpoints, 10 studies found that BP assessed by ABPM was a stronger predictor of renal function decline, assessed by serum creatinine and/or creatinine clearance or estimated glomerular filtration rate, than traditional office measurements. Twelve studies analysed the relation between different BP recordings and CV target organ damage and reported robust correlations between echocardiographic abnormalities (i.e. left ventricular mass index) and 24-h ABPM, but not with office BPs. Furthermore, 24-h ABPM correlated better than oBP with markers of vascular damage, such as carotid intima-media thickness, diffuse thickening and endothelial dysfunction. Additionally, an abnormal circadian BP pattern (non-dippers and reverse dippers) identified a group of kidney recipients at risk for kidney function loss and CV abnormalities. Conclusions In our systematic review, ABPM reflected target organ damage more closely than oBP in KTRs. Furthermore, an altered circadian BP profile associated with renal and CV target organ damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare benefits and harms of different antihypertensive drug classes in kidney transplant recipients, as post-transplant hypertension (HTN) associates with increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Methods The Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all main antihypertensive agents versus placebo/no treatment, routine treatment. Results The search identified 71 RCTs. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (26 trials) reduced the risk for graft loss {risk ratio [RR] 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38–0.89]}, increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [mean difference (MD) 3.08 mL/min (95% CI 0.38–5.78)] and reduced blood pressure (BP). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (13 trials) reduced the risk for graft loss [RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.40–0.96)] but decreased renal function and increased the risk for hyperkalaemia. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (10 trials) did not modify the risk of death, graft loss and non-fatal CV events and increased the risk for hyperkalaemia. When pooling ACEI and ARB data, the risk for graft failure was lower in renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockade as compared with control treatments. In direct comparison with ACEIs or ARBs (11 trials), CCBs increased GFR [MD 11.07 mL/min (95% CI 6.04–16.09)] and reduced potassium levels but were not more effective in reducing BP. There are few available data on mortality, graft loss and rejection. Very few studies performed comparisons with other active drugs. Conclusions CCBs could be the preferred first-step antihypertensive agents in kidney transplant patients, as they improve graft function and reduce graft loss. No definite patient or graft survival benefits were associated with RAS inhibitor use over conventional treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The presumed superiority of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS)-blocking agents over other antihypertensive agents in patients with diabetes to delay development of endstage kidney disease (ESKD) has recently been challenged. In addition, there is ongoing uncertainty whether RAAS-blocking agents reduce mortality and/or delay ESKD in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5. In this subgroup, there might be an expedited need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) when RAAS-blocking agents are used. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 6-months duration in adult patients with diabetes who also have non-dialysis CKD stages 3-5. RCTs comparing single RAAS-blocking agents to placebo or alternative antihypertensive agents were included. Outcomes of interest were allcause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, progression of renal function, ESKD and adverse events. A total of nine trials (n=9797 participants with CKD stages 3-5) fit our inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the RAAS group and control group regarding all-cause mortality {relative risk [RR]=0.97 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.10]}, cardiovascular mortality [RR=1.03 (95% CI 0.75-1.41)] and adverse events [RR=1.05 (95% CI 0.89-1.25)]. There was a trend for a favourable effect for non-fatal cardiovascular events [RR=0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00)] and a lower risk of the composite endpoint need for RRT/doubling of serum creatinine [RR=0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.92)] in the RAAS-blocking agents group versus the control group. We found evidence that in patients with diabetes mellitus and CKD stages 3-5, treatment with RAAS-blocking agents did not result in a clear survival advantage. The effect on renal outcomes did depend on the selected outcome measure. However, we did not find evidence that the use of RAASblocking agents expedited the need for RRT in patients with CKD stages 3-5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and cost. However, insufficient high-quality trial data are available to answer many relevant clinical questions in this field. In addition, a wide range of variable outcomes are used in studies, and often they are incompletely reported. Furthermore, there is a lack of patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life, pain, need for dialysis or costs. Common problems with outcome reporting are as follows: choosing the wrong domains to measure; within domains, choosing the wrong measures (invalid surrogates, composite, non-patient relevant); within measures, choosing the wrong/variablemetrics; and within metrics, choosing variable presentation methods. With this article, we aim to underline why standardized outcome reporting is key to achieving evidence-based guidance and improving clinical care for patients; highlight the frameworks available for achieving core outcome sets; and starting from these frameworks, we propose steps needed to develop a core outcome set in the field of CKD. We hope that standardized core outcome sets for nephrology will lead to the most important outcome of guideline production, improving outcomes for our patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proteinuria is a distinguishing feature in primary and secondary forms of chronic glomerulonephritis, which contribute to no more than the 20% of the end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) population. The contribution of non-proteinuric nephropathies to the global ESKD burden is still poorly focused and scarce research efforts are dedicated to the elucidation of risk factors and mechanistic pathways triggering ESKD in these diseases. We abstracted information on proteinuria in the main renal diseases other than glomerulonephritides that may evolve into ESKD. In type 2 diabetes, non-proteinuric diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is more frequent than proteinuric DKD, and risk factors for non-proteinuric forms of DKD now receive increasing attention. Similarly, proteinuria is most often inconspicuous or absent in the most frequent cause of ESKD, i.e. hypertension-related chronic kidney disease (CKD), as well as in progressive cystic diseases like autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and in pyelonephritis/tubulo-interstitial diseases. Maintaining a high degree of attention in the care of CKD patients with proteinuria is fundamental to effectively retard progression toward kidney failure. However, substantial research efforts are still needed to develop treatment strategies that may help the vast majority of CKD patients who eventually develop ESKD via mechanistic pathways other than proteinuria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]