Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Excessive dialytic potassium (K) and acid removal are risk factors for arrhythmias; however, treatment-to-treatment dialysate modification is rarely performed. We conducted a multicenter, pilot randomized study to test the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of 4 point-of-care (POC) chemistry-guided protocols to adjust dialysate K and bicarbonate (HCO3) in outpatient hemodialysis (HD) clinics. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Participants received implantable cardiac loop monitors and crossed over to four 4-week periods with adjustment of dialysate K or HCO3 at each treatment according to pre-HD POC values: (i) K-removal minimization, (ii) K-removal maximization, (iii) Acidosis avoidance, and (iv) Alkalosis avoidance. The primary end point was percentage of treatments adhering to the intervention algorithm. Secondary endpoints included pre-HD K and HCO variability, adverse events, and rates of clinically significant arrhythmias (CSAs). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Nineteen subjects were enrolled in the study. HD staff completed POC testing and correctly adjusted the dialysate in 604 of 708 (85%) of available HD treatments. There was 1 K ≤3, 29 HCO3 <20 and 2 HCO3 >32 mEq/l and no serious adverse events related to study interventions. Although there were no significant differences between POC results and conventional laboratory measures drawn concurrently, intertreatment K and HCO3 variability was high. There were 45 CSA events; most were transient atrial fibrillation (AF), with numerically fewer events during the alkalosis avoidance period (8) and K-removal maximization period (3) compared to other intervention periods (17). There were no significant differences in CSA duration among interventions. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Algorithm-guided K/HCO3 adjustment based on POC testing is feasible. The variability of intertreatment K and HCO3 suggests that a POC-laboratory-guided algorithm could markedly alter dialysate-serum chemistry gradients. Definitive end point-powered trials should be considered.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To assess whether the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin affects risk of non-genital skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a post hoc pooled individual participant analysis of the CANVAS Program and CREDENCE trials that randomized people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and/or with chronic kidney disease to either canagliflozin or placebo. Investigator-reported adverse events were assessed by two blinded authors following predetermined criteria for non-genital SSTIs. Risks of non-genital SSTIs, overall and within prespecified subgroups, and risk of non-genital fungal SSTIs, were analysed using Cox regression models. Factors associated with non-genital SSTIs were assessed using multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS:Overall, 903 of 14 531 participants (6%) experienced non-genital SSTIs over a median follow-up of 26 months. No difference was observed in non-genital SSTI rates between canagliflozin and placebo (24.0 events/1000 person-years vs. 23.9 events/1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.11; P = 0.70), with consistent results across subgroups (all P interaction > 0.05). The risk of recurrent events and non-genital fungal infection also did not differ significantly between canagliflozin and placebo (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19 [P = 0.32] and HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88-1.60 [P = 0.27], respectively). Baseline factors independently associated with non-genital SSTIs were younger age, male sex, higher body mass index, higher glycated haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), established peripheral vascular disease, and history of neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS:Canagliflozin did not affect risk of non-genital SSTIs or non-genital fungal SSTIs compared with placebo. These findings suggest that any SGLT2 inhibitor-mediated change in skin microenvironment is unlikely to have meaningful clinical consequences.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT:Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trial enrollment are well described. However, whether these disparities are present in nephrology randomized clinical trials has not been previously reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 380 randomized clinical trials involving different aspects of kidney disease published between 2000 and 2021. Our results indicate that worldwide reporting of race and ethnicity is poor and that White individuals account for most of the randomized participants with decreased enrollment of Black participants in more recent trials. However, trials conducted in the United States have representation of Black and Hispanic participants consistent with the population prevalence of disease and under-representation of Asian participants. BACKGROUND:Under-representation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials could worsen disparities, but reporting and enrollment practices in nephrology randomized clinical trials have not been described. METHODS:PubMed was searched to capture randomized clinical trials for five kidney disease-related conditions published between 2000 and 2021 in ten high-impact journals. We excluded trials with <50 participants and pilot trials. Outcomes of interest were the proportion of trials reporting race and ethnicity and the proportions of enrolled participants in each race and ethnicity category. RESULTS:Among 380 trials worldwide, race was reported in just over half and ethnicity in 12%. Most enrolled participants were White, and Black individuals accounted for ≤10% of participants except in dialysis trials where they accounted for 26% of participants. However, Black participants were enrolled at high proportions relative to disease and population prevalence in US CKD, dialysis, and transplant trials representing 19% of participants in AKI, 26% in CKD, 44% in GN, 40% in dialysis, and 26% in transplant trials. Enrollment of Asian participants was low worldwide except in GN trials with marked under-representation in US CKD, dialysis, and transplant trials. Hispanic individuals represented only 13% of participants in US dialysis trials compared with 29% of US dialysis population. CONCLUSION:More complete reporting of race and ethnicity in nephrology trials is needed. Black and Hispanic patients are well-represented in kidney disease trials in the United States. Asian patients are poorly represented in kidney trials both globally and in the United States.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:It is unclear whether the effect of canagliflozin on adverse kidney and cardiovascular events in those with diabetic kidney disease varies by age and sex. We assessed the effects of canagliflozin among age group categories and between sexes in the CREDENCE study. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Participants in the CREDENCE trial. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Participants were randomly assigned to canagliflozin 100 mg daily or placebo. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:Primary composite outcome of kidney failure, doubling of serum creatinine, or death due to kidney or cardiovascular disease. Pre-specified secondary and safety outcomes were also analyzed. Outcomes were evaluated by age at baseline (<60, 60-69, and ≥70 years) and sex in the intention-to-treat population using Cox regression models. RESULTS:=0.8). No differences in safety outcomes by age group or sex were observed. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This was a post hoc analysis with multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS:Canagliflozin consistently reduced the relative risk of kidney events in people with diabetic kidney disease in both sexes and across age subgroups. Owing to higher background risk, the absolute reduction in adverse kidney outcomes was greater in younger participants.

INTRODUCTION:Relationships between glycemic-lowering effects of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and impact on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes are uncertain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:We analyzed 4395 individuals with prebaseline and postbaseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) randomized to canagliflozin (n=2193) or placebo (n=2202) in The Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation trial. Effects on HbA1c were assessed using mixed models. Mediation of treatment effects by achieved glycemic control was analyzed using proportional hazards regression with and without adjustment for achieved HbA1c. End points included combined kidney or cardiovascular death, end-stage kidney disease or doubling of serum creatinine (primary trial outcome), and individual end point components. RESULTS:, overall HbA1c (canagliflozin vs placebo) decreased by -0.24%, -0.14%, and -0.08% respectively and likelihood of >0.5% decrease in HbA1c decreased with ORs of 1.47 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.67), 1.12 (0.94 to 1.33) and 0.99 (0.83 to 1.18), respectively. Adjustment for postbaseline HbA1c marginally attenuated canagliflozin effects on primary and kidney composite outcomes: unadjusted HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.80) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.81); adjusted for week 13 HbA1c, HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.060 to 0.84) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.83). Results adjusted for time-varying HbA1c or HbA1c as a cubic spline were similar and consistent with preserved clinical benefits across a range of excellent and poor glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS:The glycemic effects of canagliflozin are attenuated at lower eGFR but effects on kidney and cardiac end points are preserved. Non-glycemic effects may be primarily responsible for the kidney and cardioprotective benefits of canagliflozin.22.

BACKGROUND:In contrast to guidelines related to lipid therapy in other areas, 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines recommend conducting a lipid profile upon diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and treating all patients older than 50 years without defining a target for lipid levels. We evaluated multinational practice patterns for lipid management in patients with advanced CKD under nephrology care. METHODS:We analyzed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), LDL- cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and nephrologist-specified LDL-C goal upper limits in adult patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min from nephrology clinics in Brazil, France, Germany, and the United States (2014-2019). Models were adjusted for CKD stage, country, cardiovascular risk indicators, sex, and age. RESULTS:LLT treatment differed significantly by country, from 51% in Germany to 61% in the US and France (p = 0.002) for statin monotherapy. For ezetimibe with or without statins, the prevalence was 0.3% in Brazil to 9% in France (< 0.001). Compared with patients not taking lipid-lowering therapy, LDL-C was lower among treated patients (p < 0.0001) and differed significantly by country (p < 0.0001). At the patient level, the LDL-C levels and statin prescription did not vary significantly by CKD stage (p = 0.09 LDL-C and p = 0.24 statin use). Between 7-23% of untreated patients in each country had LDL-C ≥ 160 mg/dL. Only 7-17% of nephrologists believed that LDL-C should be < 70 mg/dL. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is substantial variation in practice patterns regarding LLT across countries but not across CKD stages. Treated patients appear to benefit from LDL-C lowering, yet a significant proportion of hyperlipidemia patients under nephrologist care are not receiving treatment.

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) as an AKI treatment in adults was widely accepted in critical care settings well into the 1980s. The advent of extracorporeal continuous KRT led to widespread decline in the use of PD for AKI across high-income countries. The lack of familiarity and comfort with the use of PD in critical care settings has also led to lack of use even among those receiving maintenance PD. Many critical care units reflexively convert patients receiving maintenance PD to alternative dialysis therapies at admission. Renewed interest in the use of PD for AKI therapy has emerged due to its increasing use in low- and middle-income countries. In high-income countries, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, saw PD for AKI used early on, where many critical care units were in crisis and relied on PD use when resources for other AKI therapy modalities were limited. In this review, we highlight advantages and disadvantages of PD in critical care settings and indications and contraindications for its use. We provide an overview of literature to support both PD treatment during AKI and its continuation as a maintenance therapy during critical illness. For AKI therapy, we further discuss establishment of PD access, PD prescription management, and complication monitoring and treatment. Finally, we discuss expansion in the use of PD for AKI therapy extending beyond its role during times of resource constraints.