1. The timing of RRT in Patients with AKI and Sepsis
Visual abstract by Dr. Divya Bajpai (@divyaa24)
As an anxious first-year nephrology fellow, I had to discuss all the labs with my boss before he leaves department-typically at around 6 in the evening.
“Sir, that bed 2, Gastroenteritis- AKI patient’s serum creatinine is up to 10mg/dl. Now what?”
“Tell me something about the patient whose creatinine you are talking about.”- he would reply coldly.
Results of much awaited IDEAL-ICU trial are out and are largely consistent with the existing evidence that “earlier initiation of RRT doesn’t improve survival and exposes about 40% of patients with AKI to RRT who otherwise have recovered renal function before ever needing it.”
The trial was terminated early for futility after enrolling 488 patients. By then 58% of the patients in the early- strategy group (138 of 239 patients) and 54% in the delayed-strategy group (128 of 238 patients) had died (P=0.38). In the delayed-strategy group, 38% (93 patients) did not receive RRT. These lines from the paper bother me, “The second limitation is the choice of a delay of only 48 hours, which may not be sufficiently long to allow recovery of renal function in some patients or to detect a difference between early and delayed initiation of RRT. However, we thought that a longer delay would be unethical and unsafe for patients who actually needed renal-replacement therapy.”
How do you know that delay of 72hrs or 96 hrs necessarily ends up into emergency dialysis and is unsafe? Watchful waiting, in my humble opinion, can continue until an indication develops, irrespective of the timing in hours.
AKI is one of the most common renal emergency and lets’ respect these words of wisdom. “Don’t be in hurry, we are in an emergency” –Anonymous “wise” emergency room physician to his junior colleague.
Here is a nice Twitter thread
2. Targeted Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion in patients with severe sepsis
Last week a senior surgery colleague was asking me if we can offer extracorporeal therapy to cut down dismally high mortality of perforative peritonitis. She and I were equally hopeful and skeptical respectively about this treatment, and after reviewing the literature we finally settled for the need of a pilot trial if she manages to get funding.
EUPHRATES (Evaluating the Use of Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion in a Randomized Controlled trial of Adults Treated for Endotoxemia and Septic Shock) investigators must be congratulated for a very well conceived and executed RCT addressing this question. In critically ill patients with severe sepsis with high risk of death, this technique did not reduce 28 day mortality (treatment group, 84 of 223 [37.7%] vs sham group 78 of 226 [34.5%]; risk difference [RD], 3.2%; 95% CI, −5.7% to 12.0%; relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39; P = .49). Findings were consistent in patients with more severe sepsis as well. Authors recommend against the use of this strategy.
Blinding by sham hemoperfusion, the inclusion of patients with very severe illness, so, high risk of death, and including endotoxemia >0.60 (indicating high endotoxin activity) make trial results generalizable to the real world scenarios where such desperate measures are actually used.
Endotoxin was about to become ‘creatinine of intensivists’; thanks to EUPHRATES, it won’t.
3. Antibody-Mediated Rejection of Solid-Organ Allografts
Chronic ABMR is one of those helpless situations in the life of transplant nephrologist where you watch the progressive loss of graft function without much to offer. In spite of significant improvements in the understanding of pathophysiology, (this principally includes new definitions, classifications, revisions that take birth when transplant physicians-pathologist gather at a resort town along Trans-Canada Highway and more sensitive assays of antibody detection which add to the confusion!). Chronic ABMR remains a difficult nut to crack, and if we don’t ‘let go’ beyond a limit, one can potentially add to the number of ‘death with functioning graft’ as a consequence of overtreatment. Here is a NEJM review summarising current standards of treatment and possible future therapies.
Here is a quote from the article- “An improved understanding of the natural history of antibody-mediated rejection has led to a more complex interpretation of the various clinical scenarios encountered in clinical practice, given the heterogeneity, diverse polymorphism, and temporal dependency of the clinical and histologic manifestations of antibody-mediated rejection.”
Yes, ABMR is just as difficult to treat as making sense of these lines!
4. Phosphate binders for preventing and treating chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD)
This 2018 revision of 2011 Cochrane review on phosphate binders concludes this
“Overall, we are not very sure whether specific phosphate binders are beneficial to patients with CKD. There is a possibility that sevelamer may prevent death compared to calcium-based binders, but we don’t know whether this may be caused by an increased risk of calcium-based binders, a lower risk with sevelamer treatment, or the possibility that both may be true. Patients need to know that it is not certain whether phosphate binders help to prevent complications of kidney disease, but sevelamer may be preferred to calcium binders.”
What will a man in severe debt feel if asked, “Which credit card you would like to buy? Platinum/ silver/ gold?” A very similar feeling a patient with CKD is likely to get if we (dare to) put the results of this review in context and involve him in shared decision making before choosing to use and then choosing amongst the P binders.
Let me just give you a glimpse of the “very low” quality evidence that suggests a possible advantage of sevelamer over other binders. In an analysis of 248 participants with a median follow up of less than a year showed RR of death in controls or placebo to be high as compared to sevelamer (RR 2.16). The confidence interval (CI) was 0.2 to 22.8. After what limit a CI become ‘No Confidence Interval’?
5.Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Irbesartan in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease A Randomized Double-Blind Trial
We reviewed renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in participants of PARADIGM-HF trial in our May 2018 blog post. Sacubitril/ valsartan leads to increase in albuminuria and still preserves eGFR better. While this was not the prespecified analysis, we now have an RCT examining the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on kidney function and cardiac biomarkers in people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease.
The UK HARP-III trial (United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection-III), a randomized double-blind trial, included 414 participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 20 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 who were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily. Participants ≥18 years of age were eligible to participate if they had CKD with either (1) an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥45 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and a urine albumin:creatinine ratio (uACR) >20 mg/mmol (177 mg/g), or (2) an eGFR of ≥20 and <45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (regardless of uACR).
At 12 months, there was no difference in the primary endpoint: measured (wow!) GFR (51Cr-EDTA, 99mTcDTPA, or iohexol methods)- 29.8 (SE 0.5) among those assigned sacubitril/valsartan versus 29.9 (SE, 0.5) mL/min/1.73 m2 among those assigned irbesartan; difference, ‒0.1 (0.7) mL/min/1.73 m2.
Compared with irbesartan, sacubitril/valsartan further reduces both blood pressure and biomarkers of cardiovascular risk (troponin I and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). Albuminuria was not different in the two groups.
Authors conclude that “sacubitril/ valsartan could be an acceptable treatment to reduce cardiovascular risk in people with chronic kidney disease, a high-risk population with an unmet need”.
Will we have an RCT with hard endpoints? Hard to say given the track record.
6. Effect of Increased Daily Water Intake in Premenopausal Women With Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections: A Randomized Clinical Trial
In an open-label, controlled trial funded by Danone (which sells bottled water), Hooton et al randomized 140 healthy women with recurrent cystitis (3 episodes in past year) drinking less than 1.5 L in a day to drink, in addition to their usual fluid intake, 1.5 L of water daily (water group) or no additional fluids (control group) for 12 months. The primary outcome measure was the self-reported frequency of cystitis. During the 12-month study period, the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes was 1.7 (95% CI, 1.5-1.8) in the water group compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.4) in the control group, with a difference in means of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001)
This low-cost intervention seems to be an effective antimicrobial-sparing strategy in this group of individuals.
7. Are NSAIDs safe in patients with CKD?
Choosing wisely campaign suggests avoiding the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and CKD to which most of us comply. Here is a retrospective cohort NSAID in elderly adults visiting the primary care physician for musculoskeletal complaints. 9.3% of such visits were followed by NSAID prescription, 11% of the physicians chose NSAIDs for these patients. Authors study in JAMA Int Med evaluating the frequency of identified 35 552 pairs (for each patient exposed to NSAID and they identified (by propensity score matching) a control patient not exposed but the similar likelihood of exposure.
Rates of cardiac complications(288 [0.8%] vs 279 [0.8%]), renal complications(34 [0.1%] vs 33 [0.1%]), and death (27 [0.1%] vs 30 [0.1%]) were similar among cases and control, leading to this rather bold conclusion, “NSAID use in this population is not associated with short term safety concerns”. This should not be overinterpreted to challenge the “choosing wisely recommendations”.
Firstly, as a nephrologist I am interested in what happens long term rather than within a week. Moreover, we don’t have any information on severity of renal dysfunction of the population (physicians are more likely to use NSAIDs for patients with mild CKD which may well include patients labelled as CKD due to age related GFR decline). Apart from this confounding by indications, several other limitations of propensity score method like residual confounding, unmeasurable imbalances etc should be taken into account before we put these results into practice.