-
The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology Nov 2019The effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on kidney failure, particularly the need for dialysis or transplantation or death due to kidney... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on kidney failure, particularly the need for dialysis or transplantation or death due to kidney disease, is uncertain. Additionally, previous studies have been underpowered to robustly assess heterogeneity of effects on kidney outcomes by different levels of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria. We aimed to do a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on major kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and to determine the consistency of effect size across trials and different levels of eGFR and albuminuria.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled, cardiovascular or kidney outcome trials of SGLT2 inhibitors that reported effects on major kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to June 14, 2019, to identify eligible trials. The primary outcome was a composite of dialysis, transplantation, or death due to kidney disease. We used random-effects models to obtain summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs and random-effects meta-regression to explore effect modification by subgroups of baseline eGFR, albuminuria, and use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade. This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131774).
FINDINGS
From 2085 records identified, four studies met our inclusion criteria, assessing three SGLT2 inhibitors: empagliflozin (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), canagliflozin (CANVAS Program and CREDENCE), and dapagliflozin (DECLARE-TIMI 58). From a total of 38 723 participants, 252 required dialysis or transplantation or died of kidney disease, 335 developed end-stage kidney disease, and 943 had acute kidney injury. SGLT2 inhibitors substantially reduced the risk of dialysis, transplantation, or death due to kidney disease (RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·52-0·86, p=0·0019), an effect consistent across studies (I=0%, p=0·53). SGLT2 inhibitors also reduced end-stage kidney disease (0·65, 0·53-0·81, p<0·0001), and acute kidney injury (0·75, 0·66-0·85, p<0·0001), with consistent benefits across studies. Although we identified some evidence that the proportional effect of SGLT2 inhibitors might attenuate with declining kidney function (p=0·073), there was clear, separate evidence of benefit for all eGFR subgroups, including for participants with a baseline eGFR 30-45 mL/min per 1·73 m (RR 0·70, 95% CI 0·54-0·91, p=0·0080). Renoprotection was also consistent across studies irrespective of baseline albuminuria (p=0·66) and use of RAS blockade (p=0·31).
INTERPRETATION
SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of dialysis, transplantation, or death due to kidney disease in individuals with type 2 diabetes and provided protection against acute kidney injury. These data provide substantive evidence supporting the use of SGLT2 inhibitors to prevent major kidney outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Diabetic Nephropathies; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 31495651
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30256-6 -
Renal Failure Dec 2023The safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in elderly patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is still controversial. This study aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
The safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in elderly patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is still controversial. This study aimed to analyze the safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and DKD. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Data including patient characteristics and interesting outcomes were extracted, and the dichotomous data and continuous variables were evaluated using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs, respectively. A total of 14 RCTs with 59874 participants were finally included. There were 38,252 males (63.9%) and 21,622 females (36.1%). The patients' mean age was > 64.6 years. SGLT2 inhibitors could delay the further decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) when eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73m (MD: 2.36; 95%CI [1.15-3.57]). SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m (RR: 0.86; 95%CI [0.67-1.11]) may have a relatively increased risk of acute kidney injury compared to eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73m. SGLT2 inhibitors increased the incidence of genital mycotic infections (RR: 3.47; 95%CI [2.97-4.04]) and diabetic ketoacidosis (RR: 2.25; 95%CI [1.57-3.24]). Except for genital mycotic infections and diabetic ketoacidosis, other adverse reactions were few, indicating that SGLT2 inhibitors are relatively safe for elderly patients with T2DM and DKD. Safety and renoprotection may be diminished when SGLT2 inhibitors are used in elderly patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Aged; Middle Aged; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Diabetic Nephropathies; Diabetic Ketoacidosis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Symporters; Glucose; Sodium; Hypoglycemic Agents
PubMed: 37246403
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2023.2217287 -
Diabetes Care Apr 2020Identifying patients at high risk of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) helps improve clinical outcome. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Identifying patients at high risk of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) helps improve clinical outcome.
PURPOSE
To establish a model for predicting DKD.
DATA SOURCES
The derivation cohort was from a meta-analysis. The validation cohort was from a Chinese cohort.
STUDY SELECTION
Cohort studies that reported risk factors of DKD with their corresponding risk ratios (RRs) in patients with type 2 diabetes were selected. All patients had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) <30 mg/g at baseline.
DATA EXTRACTION
Risk factors and their corresponding RRs were extracted. Only risk factors with statistical significance were included in our DKD risk prediction model.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty cohorts including 41,271 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in our meta-analysis. Age, BMI, smoking, diabetic retinopathy, hemoglobin A, systolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, UACR, and eGFR were statistically significant. All these risk factors were included in the model except eGFR because of the significant heterogeneity among studies. All risk factors were scored according to their weightings, and the highest score was 37.0. The model was validated in an external cohort with a median follow-up of 2.9 years. A cutoff value of 16 was selected with a sensitivity of 0.847 and a specificity of 0.677.
LIMITATIONS
There was huge heterogeneity among studies involving eGFR. More evidence is needed to power it as a risk factor of DKD.
CONCLUSIONS
The DKD risk prediction model consisting of nine risk factors established in this study is a simple tool for detecting patients at high risk of DKD.
Topics: Adult; Age of Onset; Aged; Blood Pressure; Cohort Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Nephropathies; Diabetic Retinopathy; Female; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Kidney Function Tests; Male; Middle Aged; Models, Statistical; Prognosis; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 32198286
DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1897 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure across the world. For decades dietary protein restriction has been proposed for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) continues to be the leading cause of kidney failure across the world. For decades dietary protein restriction has been proposed for patients with DKD with the aim to retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) towards kidney failure. However, the relative benefits and harms of dietary protein restriction for slowing the progression of DKD have not been addressed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of low protein diets (LPD) (0.6 to 0.8 g/kg/day) in preventing the progression of CKD towards kidney failure and in reducing the incidence of kidney failure and death (any cause) in adult patients with DKD. Moreover, the effect of LPD on adverse events (e.g. malnutrition, hyperglycaemic events, or health-related quality of life (HRQoL)) and compliance were also evaluated.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 17 November 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in which adults with DKD not on dialysis were randomised to receive either a LPD (0.6 to 0.8 g/kg/day) or a usual or unrestricted protein diet (UPD) (≥ 1.0 g/kg/day) for at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model. Results were summarised as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight studies involving 486 participants with DKD. The prescribed protein intake in the intervention groups ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 g/kg/day. The prescribed protein intake in the control groups was ≥ 1.0 g/kg/day, or a calculated protein intake ≥ 1.0 g/kg/day if data on prescribed protein intake were not provided. The mean duration of the interventions was two years (ranging from one to five years). Risks of bias in most of the included studies were high or unclear, most notably for allocation concealment, performance and detection bias. All studies were considered to be at high risk for performance bias due to the nature of the interventions. Most studies were not designed to examine death or kidney failure. In low certainty evidence, a LPD may have little or no effect on death (5 studies, 358 participants: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.44; I² = 0%), and the number of participants who reached kidney failure (4 studies, 287 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.59; I² = 0%). Compared to a usual or unrestricted protein intake, it remains uncertain whether a LPD slows the decline of glomerular filtration rate over time (7 studies, 367 participants: MD -0.73 mL/min/1.73 m²/year, 95% CI -2.3 to 0.83; I² = 53%; very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether the restriction of dietary protein intake impacts on the annual decline in creatinine clearance (3 studies, 203 participants: MD -2.39 mL/min/year, 95% CI -5.87 to 1.08; I² = 53%). There was only one study reporting 24-hour urinary protein excretion. In very low certainty evidence, a LPD had uncertain effects on the annual change in proteinuria (1 study, 80 participants: MD 0.90 g/24 hours, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31). There was no evidence of malnutrition in seven studies, while one study noted this condition in the LPD group. Participant compliance with a LPD was unsatisfactory in nearly half of the studies. One study reported LPD had no effect on HRQoL. No studies reported hyperglycaemic events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Dietary protein restriction has uncertain effects on changes in kidney function over time. However, it may make little difference to the risk of death and kidney failure. Questions remain about protein intake levels and compliance with protein-restricted diets. There are limited data on HRQoL and adverse effects such as nutritional measures and hyperglycaemic events. Large-scale pragmatic RCTs with sufficient follow-up are required for different stages of CKD.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Diet, Protein-Restricted; Diabetic Nephropathies; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Malnutrition; Hyperglycemia; Diabetes Mellitus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36594428
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014906.pub2 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.
OBJECTIVES
To identify and assess the quality and accuracy of prognostic models for nephropathy and to validate these models in external cohorts of people with type 2 diabetes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and external validation.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Studies describing the development of a model to predict the risk of nephropathy, applicable to people with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done in duplicate. Eligible models were externally validated in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) cohort (n=11 450) for the same outcomes for which they were developed. Risks of nephropathy were calculated and compared with observed risk over 2, 5, and 10 years of follow-up. Model performance was assessed based on intercept adjusted calibration and discrimination (Harrell's C statistic).
RESULTS
41 studies included in the systematic review reported 64 models, 46 of which were developed in a population with diabetes and 18 in the general population including diabetes as a predictor. The predicted outcomes included albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease (general population), and end stage renal disease. The reported apparent discrimination of the 46 models varied considerably across the different predicted outcomes, from 0.60 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.64) to 0.99 (not available) for the models developed in a diabetes population and from 0.59 (not available) to 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97) for the models developed in the general population. Calibration was reported in 31 of the 41 studies, and the models were generally well calibrated. 21 of the 64 retrieved models were externally validated in the Hoorn DCS cohort for predicting risk of albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease, with considerable variation in performance across prediction horizons and models. For all three outcomes, however, at least two models had C statistics >0.8, indicating excellent discrimination. In a secondary external validation in GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland), models developed for diabetic kidney disease outperformed those for chronic kidney disease. Models were generally well calibrated across all three prediction horizons.
CONCLUSIONS
This study identified multiple prediction models to predict albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and end stage renal disease. In the external validation, discrimination and calibration for albuminuria, diabetic kidney disease, and chronic kidney disease varied considerably across prediction horizons and models. For each outcome, however, specific models showed good discrimination and calibration across the three prediction horizons, with clinically accessible predictors, making them applicable in a clinical setting.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020192831.
Topics: Aged; Albuminuria; Calibration; Clinical Decision Rules; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Nephropathies; Female; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Prognosis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34583929
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Anaemia occurs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is more prevalent with lower levels of kidney function. Anaemia in CKD is associated with death related to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anaemia occurs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is more prevalent with lower levels of kidney function. Anaemia in CKD is associated with death related to cardiovascular (CV) disease and infection. Established treatments include erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions. Oral hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF) stabilisers are now available to manage anaemia in people with CKD.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to assess the benefits and potential harms of HIF stabilisers for the management of anaemia in people with CKD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 22 November 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to our review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating hypoxia-inducible factors stabilisers compared to placebo, standard care, ESAs or iron supplementation in people with CKD were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Five authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects pair-wise meta-analysis and expressed as a relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 51 studies randomising 30,994 adults. These studies compared HIF stabilisers to either placebo or an ESA. Compared to placebo, HIF stabiliser therapy had uncertain effects on CV death (10 studies, 1114 participants): RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 70.21; very low certainty evidence), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (3 studies, 822 participants): RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.36; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), probably decreases the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (8 studies, 4329 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and increases the proportion of patients reaching the target haemoglobin (Hb) (10 studies, 5102 participants): RR 8.36, 95% CI 6.42 to 10.89; I² = 37%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to ESAs, HIF stabiliser therapy may make little or no difference to CV death (17 studies, 10,340 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), nonfatal MI (7 studies, 7765 participants): RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and nonfatal stroke (5 studies, 7285 participants): RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.56; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence), and had uncertain effects on fatigue (2 studies, 3471 participants): RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence). HIF stabiliser therapy probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (11 studies, 10,786 participants): RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; I² = 25%; moderate certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference on the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb (14 studies, 4601 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; I² = 70%; low certainty evidence), compared to ESA. The effect of HIF stabilisers on hospitalisation for heart failure, peripheral arterial events, loss of unassisted dialysis vascular access patency, access intervention, cancer, infection, pulmonary hypertension and diabetic nephropathy was uncertain. None of the included studies reported life participation. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
HIF stabiliser management of anaemia had uncertain effects on CV death, fatigue, death (any cause), CV outcomes, and kidney failure compared to placebo or ESAs. Compared to placebo or ESAs, HIF stabiliser management of anaemia probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusions, and probably increased the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb when compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Anemia; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Fatigue; Humans; Hypoxia; Iron; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 36005278
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013751.pub2 -
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism Jan 2021With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) worldwide, the number of associated diabetic foot complications might also increase. This...
AIMS
With increasing numbers of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) worldwide, the number of associated diabetic foot complications might also increase. This systematic review was performed to summarize published data about risk factors for the diabetic foot (DF) syndrome in order to improve the identification of high-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six electronic databases were searched for publications up to August 2019 using predefined stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Of 9,476 identified articles, 31 articles from 28 different study populations fulfilled the criteria for our evaluation. The overall quality of the studies was good, and the risk of bias was low. There was large heterogeneity among the studies concerning study protocols and patient populations analysed. A total of 79 risk factors were analysed within this review. The majority of studies described a consistently positive association with different outcomes of interest related to DF for gender, peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy, poor glycaemic control, insulin use, duration of diabetes, smoking and height. For age, hypertension, dyslipidaemia and body mass index, the results remain inconsistent.
CONCLUSION
A most up-to-date literature review resulted in glycaemic control and smoking as the only amenable risk factors with a consistently positive association for DF. Due to the high personal and financial burden associated with DF and the large heterogeneity among included studies, additional longitudinal studies in large patient populations are necessary to identify more modifiable risk factors that can be used in the prediction and prevention of DF complications.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Female; Glycemic Control; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Smoking; Young Adult
PubMed: 33532615
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.175 -
Circulation Apr 2019Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents that... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of the Effects of Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptor Agonists and Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for Prevention of Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
BACKGROUND
Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents that also reduce cardiovascular risk. The relative benefits in patients with and without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for different outcomes with these classes of drugs remain undefined.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis of GLP1-RA and SGLT2i cardiovascular outcomes trials using the PubMed and EMBASE databases (Excerpta Medica Database). The primary outcomes were the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death (MACE); hospitalization for heart failure; and progression of kidney disease.
RESULTS
In total, data from 8 trials and 77 242 patients, 42 920 (55.6%) in GLP1-RA trials, and 34 322 (44.4%) in SGLT2i trials, were included. Both drug classes reduced MACE in a similar magnitude with GLP1-RA reducing the risk by 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P<0.001) and SGLT2i by 11% (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P=0.001). For both drug classes, this treatment effect was restricted to a 14% reduction in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P=0.002), whereas no effect was seen in patients without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; P=0.81; P interaction, 0.028). SGLT2i reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79; P<0.001), whereas GLP1-RA did not have a significant effect (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04; P=0.20). Both GLP1-RA (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P<0.001) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67; P<0.001) reduced the risk of progression of kidney disease including macroalbuminuria, but only SGLT2i reduced the risk of worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
In trials reported to date, GLP1-RA and SGLT2i reduce atherosclerotic MACE to a similar degree in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, whereas SGLT2i have a more marked effect on preventing hospitalization for heart failure and progression of kidney disease. Their distinct clinical benefit profiles should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Topics: Aged; Atherosclerosis; Cardiovascular Diseases; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Cardiomyopathies; Diabetic Nephropathies; Female; Glucagon-Like Peptide Receptors; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Kidney Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Proportional Hazards Models; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 30786725
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038868 -
Renal Failure Dec 2022The role of probiotics in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has been shown. Several current trials are investigating the effect of probiotics, which are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
The role of probiotics in the management of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has been shown. Several current trials are investigating the effect of probiotics, which are widely used to modulate biomarkers of renal function, glucose, lipids, inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with DKD. However, their findings are controversial. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the impact of probiotics on patients with DKD meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Wanfang Database and Chinese VIP Database were searched for relevant studies from the establishment of these databases to September 2021. The pooled results evaluated the impact of probiotics on renal function, glucose, lipids, inflammation and oxidative stress indicators in patients with DKD. Additionally, subgroup analysis was performed based on intervention duration, probiotic dose and probiotic consumption patterns, respectively.
RESULTS
Ten trials that included 552 participants were identified for analysis. Compared with the controls, probiotics significantly decreased serum creatinine (Scr) [WMD = -0.17 mg/dL; 95%CI = -0.29, -0.05; = 0.004], blood urea nitrogen (BUN) [WMD = -1.36 mg/dL; 95%CI = -2.20, -0.52; = 0.001], cystatin C (Cys C) [WMD = -29.50 ng/mL; 95%CI = -32.82, -26.18; < 0.00001], urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) [WMD = -16.05 mg/g; 95%CI = -27.12, -4.99; = 0.004] and natrium (Na) [WMD = -0.94 mmol/L; 95%CI = -1.82, -0.05; = 0.04] in patients with DKD. Enhanced glycemic control was observed in patients with DKD receiving probiotics compared with controls, as demonstrated by reduced levels of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), homeostasis model of assessment-estimated insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and increased quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI). Probiotics affected lipid metabolism parameters with decreasing triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels in patients with DKD. Probiotics could also could improve inflammation and oxidative stress by decreasing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), plasma malondialdehyde (MDA), total antioxidant capacity (TAC), glutathione (GSH) and nitric oxide (NO). Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that those who received multiple species probiotics had a statistically significant difference in BUN, FPG, HOMA-IR, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), MDA, TAC, and NO. Meanwhile, Scr, LDL-c, HDL-c, MDA, and TAC were ameliorated when the intervention duration was more than eight weeks and BUN, FPG, HOMA-IR, and MDA were improved when the probiotic dose was greater than four billion CFU/day.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis revealed that probiotics could delay the progression of renal function injury, improve glucose and lipid metabolism, and reduce inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with DKD. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention duration, probiotic dose and probiotic consumption patterns had an effect of probiotics on outcomes.
Topics: Blood Glucose; C-Reactive Protein; Cholesterol, LDL; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Nephropathies; Glucose; Humans; Inflammation; Insulin Resistance; Kidney; Oxidative Stress; Probiotics
PubMed: 35611435
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2022.2079522 -
PLoS Medicine Sep 2017Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Humans; Hypertension; Life Style; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28926573
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389