Dataset Information

Effects of statins in patients with chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To analyse the benefits and harms of statins in patients with chronic kidney disease (pre-dialysis, dialysis, and transplant populations).

Design

Meta-analysis.

Data sources

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Renal Health Library (July 2006).

Study selection

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of statins compared with placebo or other statins in chronic kidney disease.

Data extraction and analysis

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Differences were resolved by consensus. Treatment effects were summarised as relative risks or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals by using a random effects model.

Results

Fifty trials (30 144 patients) were included. Compared with placebo, statins significantly reduced total cholesterol (42 studies, 6390 patients; weighted mean difference -42.28 mg/dl (1.10 mmol/l), 95% confidence interval -47.25 to -37.32), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (39 studies, 6216 patients; -43.12 mg/dl (1.12 mmol/l), -47.85 to -38.40), and proteinuria (g/24 hours) (6 trials, 311 patients; -0.73 g/24 hour, -0.95 to -0.52) but did not improve glomerular filtration rate (11 studies, 548 patients; 1.48 ml/min (0.02 ml/s), -2.32 to 5.28). Fatal cardiovascular events (43 studies, 23 266 patients; relative risk 0.81, 0.73 to 0.90) and non-fatal cardiovascular events (8 studies, 22 863 patients; 0.78, 0.73 to 0.84) were reduced with statins, but statins had no significant effect on all cause mortality (44 studies, 23 665 patients; 0.92, 0.82 to 1.03). Meta-regression analysis showed that treatment effects did not vary significantly with stage of chronic kidney disease. The side effect profile of statins was similar to that of placebo. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality; mortality data were provided by a few large trials only.

Conclusion

Statins significantly reduce lipid concentrations and cardiovascular end points in patients with chronic kidney disease, irrespective of stage of disease, but no benefit on all cause mortality or the role of statins in primary prevention has been established. Reno-protective effects of statins are uncertain because of relatively sparse data and possible outcomes reporting bias.

SUBMITTER: Strippoli GF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2270960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are known to prevent cardiovascular disease and improve lipid profiles. However, the effects of statins on renal outcomes, including decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), are controversial. This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of statins on renal outcomes in patients with CKD.Materials and methodsWe comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases. The inclusion criteria were published RCT and cohort studies comparing statin therapy to placebo or active controls in patients with CKD (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) not requiring dialysis. The primary outcome was the differences in the change of eGFR. We also examined change of protein concentration in urine as a secondary outcome. A meta-analysis comparing statin and its control groups and a subgroup analysis examining intensity of statin were performed.ResultsFrom 142 full-text articles, 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a significant difference in rate of eGFR change per year favoring statin group (mean difference (MD) = 0.10 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.12). In our subgroup analysis, those who received high-intensity statins had a significant difference in eGFR with a MD of 3.35 (95% CI: 0.91 to 5.79) ml/min/1.73 m(2) compared to control. No significant change in eGFR was found with moderate- and low-intensity statin therapy. Compared with the control group, the statin group did not have a difference in reduction of proteinuria with MD in change of proteinuria of 0.19 gm/day (95% CI: -0.02 to 0.40).ConclusionOverall, there was a difference in change of eGFR between the statin and control group. High-intensity statins were found to improve a decline in eGFR in population with CKD not requiring dialysis compared with control, but moderate- and low-intensity statins were not. Statins were not found to decrease proteinuria in patients with CKD.

Project description:ObjectiveTo define the cardiovascular effects of lowering blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease.DesignCollaborative prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sources and eligibilityParticipating randomised trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with placebo or each other or that compare different blood pressure targets, with at least 1000 patient years of follow-up per arm.Main outcome measuresMajor cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death) in composite and individually and all cause death.Participants26 trials (152,290 participants), including 30,295 individuals with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2).Data extractionIndividual participant data were available for 23 trials, with summary data from another three. Meta-analysis according to baseline kidney function was performed. Pooled hazard ratios per 5 mm Hg lower blood pressure were estimated with a random effects model.ResultsCompared with placebo, blood pressure lowering regimens reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about a sixth per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure in individuals with (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.90) and without reduced eGFR (0.83, 0.79 to 0.88), with no evidence for any difference in effect (P=1.00 for homogeneity). The results were similar irrespective of whether blood pressure was reduced by regimens based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics/β blockers. There was no evidence that the effects of different drug classes on major cardiovascular events varied between patients with different eGFR (all P>0.60 for homogeneity).ConclusionsBlood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular events among people with moderately reduced eGFR. There is little evidence from these overviews to support the preferential choice of particular drug classes for the prevention of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease.

Project description:ObjectiveGut flora imbalance characterizes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although biotic supplementation has been proposed to lessen inflammation and oxidative stress and, thus, reduce the risk of progressive kidney damage and cardiovascular disease, the effects remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic benefits of biotics in CKD.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that evaluated any biotic (prebiotic, probiotic, synbiotics) supplements in patients with CKD (CKD, stage 3-4 to end-stage renal disease). Primary endpoints included changes in renal function, markers of inflammation, and oxidative stress. Secondary endpoints included changes in levels of uremic toxins and variations in lipid metabolism.ResultsTwenty-three eligible studies included 842 participants. In a pooled-analysis, biotics did not change estimated glomerular filtration rate (mean difference [MD] = 0.08, P = .92) or serum albumin (MD = -0.01, P = .86), although prebiotics reduced serum creatinine (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.23, P = .009) and blood urea nitrogen (MD = -6.05, P < .00001). Biotics improved total antioxidative capacity (SMD = 0.37, P = .007) and malondialdehyde (SMD = -0.96, P = .006) and reduced the inflammatory marker interleukin-6 (SMD = -0.30, P = .01) although not C-reactive protein (SMD = -0.22, P = .20). Biotic intervention reduced some uremic toxins, including p-cresol sulfate (SMD = -2.18, P < .0001) and indoxyl sulfate (MD = -5.14, P = .0009), which decreased in dialysis-dependent patients. Another toxin, indole-3-acetic acid (MD = -0.22, P = .63), did not change. Lipids were unaffected by biotic intervention (total cholesterol: SMD = -0.01, P = .89; high-density lipoprotein: SMD = -0.08, P = .76; low-density lipoprotein: MD = 3.54, P = .28; triglyceride: MD = -2.26, P = .58).ConclusionThe results highlight the favorable influence of biotics on circulating markers of creatinine, oxidant stress (malondialdehyde, total antioxidative capacity), inflammation (interleukin-6), and uremic toxins (p-cresol sulfate) in patients with CKD. Biotics did not affect estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, indole-3-acetic acid, or lipids in either predialysis or dialysis patients.

Project description:To examine whether the benefit of statins varied according to cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV mortality of the treated population.Meta-analysis and meta-regression of 16 randomized placebo-controlled trials.Community and hospital.Statin- (n = 59,671) and placebo-treated (n = 59,707) individuals with and without CV disease (mean age 55 to 75).Meta-regression was used to model relative risks (RRs) of major CV events (myocardial infarction and stroke) and total mortality for statins versus placebo as a function of CV and non-CV mortality risks of the study population.Every 1% increase in 5-year non-CV mortality risk of the study population was associated with a 3.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2 to 6.3%) greater RR of major CV events and a 4.4% (95% CI = 2.1 to 6.9%) greater RR of total mortality. (Higher RRs indicate smaller benefits.) CV mortality was not associated with statin effects (P > .05). In stratified analysis according to CV (?5.3% vs <5.3%) and non-CV mortality (?3.8% vs <3.8%) of the study population, statins had little mortality benefit in populations with high non-CV mortality, regardless of CV mortality (random-effects pooled RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.91, for low CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.06 for low CV and high non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.87 for high CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.02 for high CV and high non-CV mortality). The CV event reduction was also attenuated in populations with high non-CV mortality (random-effects pooled RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.75, for low CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.81 for low CV and high non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.87 for high CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92 for high CV and high non-CV mortality).Benefits of statins may depend on the non-CV mortality risk of the treated population. This should be confirmed using individual-level data.

Project description:BackgroundCalcimimetic agents lower serum parathyroid hormone levels in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but treatment effects on patient-relevant outcomes are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the benefits and harms of calcimimetic therapy in adults with CKD and used cumulative meta-analysis to identify how evidence for calcimimetic treatment has developed in this clinical setting.Methods and findingsCochrane and Embase databases (through February 7, 2013) were electronically searched to identify randomized trials evaluating effects of calcimimetic therapy on mortality and adverse events in adults with CKD. Two independent reviewers identified trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Eighteen trials comprising 7,446 participants compared cinacalcet plus conventional therapy with placebo or no treatment plus conventional therapy in adults with CKD. In moderate- to high-quality evidence (based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria) in adults with CKD stage 5D (dialysis), cinacalcet had little or no effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.05]), had imprecise effect on cardiovascular mortality (0.67 [0.16-2.87]), and prevented parathyroidectomy (0.49 [0.40-0.59]) and hypercalcemia (0.23 [0.05-0.97]), but increased hypocalcemia (6.98 [5.10-9.53]), nausea (2.02 [1.45-2.81]), and vomiting (1.97 [1.73-2.24]). Data for clinical outcomes were sparse in adults with CKD stages 3-5. On average, treating 1,000 people with CKD stage 5D for 1 y had no effect on survival and prevented about three patients from experiencing parathyroidectomy, whilst 60 experienced hypocalcemia and 150 experienced nausea. Analyses were limited by insufficient data in CKD stages 3-5 and kidney transplant recipients.ConclusionsCinacalcet reduces the need for parathyroidectomy in patients with CKD stage 5D, but does not appear to improve all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. Additional trials in CKD stage 5D are unlikely to change our confidence in the treatment effects of cinacalcet in this population.

Project description:ObjectivesTo provide a broad evaluation of the efficacy and safety of oral Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an adjunctive treatment for diabetic kidney disease (DKD), including mortality, progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), albuminuria, proteinuria and kidney function.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral CHM with placebo as an additional intervention to conventional treatments were retrieved from five English (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and four Chinese databases (China BioMedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chonqing VIP and Wanfang) from inception to May 2018. RCTs recruiting adult DKD patients induced by primary diabetes were considered eligible, regardless of the form and ingredients of oral CHM. Mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was used to analyse continuous variables and RR for dichotomous data.ResultsFrom 7255 reports retrieved, 20 eligible studies involving 2719 DKD patients were included. CHM was associated with greater reduction of albuminuria than placebo, regardless of whether renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors were concurrently administered (SMD -0.56, 95% CI [-1.04 to -0.08], I2=64%, p=0.002) or not (SMD -0.92, 95% CI [-1.35 to -0.51], I2=87%, p<0.0001). When CHM was used as an adjunct to RAS inhibitors, estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher in the CHM than placebo group (MD 6.28 mL/min; 95% CI [2.42 to 10.14], I2=0%, p=0.001). The effects of CHM on progression to ESKD and mortality were uncertain due to low event rates. The reported adverse events in CHM group included digestive disorders, elevated liver enzyme level, infection, anaemia, hypertension and subarachnoid haemorrhage, but the report rates were low and similar to control groups. The favourable results of CHM should be balanced with the limitations of the included studies such as high heterogeneity, short follow-up periods, small numbers of clinical events and older patients with less advanced disease.ConclusionsBased on moderate to low quality evidence, CHM may have beneficial effects on renal function and albuminuria beyond that afforded by conventional treatment in adults with DKD. Further well-conducted, adequately powered trials with representative DKD populations are warranted to confirm the long-term effect of CHM, particularly on clinically relevant outcomes.Prospero registration numberCRD42015029293.