Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) has been linked to poor health outcomes, including diminished quality and length of life. This condition is characterized by high phosphate levels and requires phosphate-lowering agents-phosphate binders. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effects of available phosphate binders on patient-important outcomes in patients with CKD-MBD.

Methods

Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE Trials from 1996 to February 2016. We also searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2016. Teams of two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full text reports to determine eligibility, and subsequently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible trials enrolled patients with CKD-MBD, randomized them to receive calcium (delivered as calcium acetate, calcium citrate or calcium carbonate), non-calcium-based phosphate binders (NCBPB) (sevelamer hydrochloride, sevelamer carbonate, lanthanum carbonate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide and ferric citrate), phosphorus restricted diet, placebo or no treatment, and reported effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hospitalization at ?4 weeks follow-up. We performed network meta-analyses (NMA) for all cause-mortality for individual agents (seven-node analysis) and conventional meta-analysis of calcium vs. NCBPBs for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization. In the NMAs, we calculated the effect estimates for direct, indirect and network meta-analysis estimates; for both NMA and conventional meta-analysis, we pooled treatment effects as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effect models. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the quality of evidence for each paired comparison.

Results

Our search yielded 1190 citations, of which 71 RCTs were retrieved for full review and 15 proved eligible. With 13 eligible studies from a prior review, we included 28 studies with 8335 participants; 25 trials provided data for our quantitative synthesis. Results suggest higher mortality with calcium than either sevelamer (NMA RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.02 to 3.50], moderate quality evidence) or NCBPBs (conventional meta-analysis RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.21 to 2.56, moderate quality evidence). Conventional meta-analysis suggested no difference in cardiovascular mortality between calcium and NCBPBs (RR, 2.54 [95% CI, 0.67 to 9.62 low quality evidence). Our results suggest higher hospitalization, although non-significant, with calcium than NCBPBs (RR, 1.293 [95% CI, 0.94 to 1.74, moderate quality evidence).

Discussion/conclusions

Use of calcium results in higher mortality than either sevelamer in particular and NCBPBs in general (moderate quality evidence). Our results raise questions about whether administration of calcium as an intervention for CKD- MBD remains ethical. Further research is needed to explore the effects of different types of phosphate binders, including novel agents such as iron, on quality and quantity of life.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD-42016032945.

SUBMITTER: Sekercioglu N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4898688 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Sekercioglu Nigar N Thabane Lehana L Díaz Martínez Juan Pablo JP Nesrallah Gihad G Longo Christopher J CJ Busse Jason W JW Akhtar-Danesh Noori N Agarwal Arnav A Al-Khalifah Reem R Iorio Alfonso A Guyatt Gordon H GH

PloS one 20160608 6

<h4>Background</h4>Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD) has been linked to poor health outcomes, including diminished quality and length of life. This condition is characterized by high phosphate levels and requires phosphate-lowering agents-phosphate binders. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effects of available phosphate binders on patient-important outcomes in patients with CKD-MBD.<h4>Methods</h4>Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE Trials f ...[more]

PMID: 27276077

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of seven major interventions [Bulevirtide (BLV), Interferon (IFN), Nucleoside analogs (NAs), BLV + IFN, BLV + NAs, IFN + NAs, and Placebo] to treat chronic hepatitis D.MethodsWe followed PRISMA-NMA guidelines, searched databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web Of Science) for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and applied STATA17.0 software to execute the meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 14 randomized controlled trials (814 patients) comparing seven different interventions. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that: ① Sustained virological response (after 24 weeks of follow-up): Four intervention groups (BLV + IFN, IFN alone, IFN + NAs, and NAs alone) were effective (relative risk (RR) = 13.30, 95% confidence interval (Cl) [1.68,105.32], RR = 12.13, 95% Cl [1.46,101.04], RR = 5.05, 95% Cl [1.68,15.19], RR = 5.03, 95% Cl [1.66,15.20]), with no statistically significant differences between the four groups. The top three in probability rankings were: BLV + NAs, BLV + IFN, and BLV alone (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 86.8%, 80.3%, and 48.4%; ② Sustained biochemical response (after 24 weeks of follow-up): BLV + IFN and IFN were superior to BLV (RR = 14.71, 95% Cl [1.14,189.07], RR = 16.67, 95% Cl [1.39,199.52]). The top three were BLV alone, BLV + NAs, and BLV + IFN (SUCRA = 86.9%,81.2%, and 64.3%). ③ Histological response: NAs were superior to BLV (RR = 2.08, 95% Cl [1.10,3.93]), whereas the difference between other treatment regimens was not statistically significant, and the top three in the probability ranking were BLV alone, BLV + NAs, and BLV + IFN (SUCRA = 75.6%, 75.6%, and 61.8%).ConclusionsIFN, IFN + BLV, and IFN + NAs were effective in clearing HDV RNA and normalizing alanine aminotransferase levels; however, IFN and IFN + NAs had a high rate of viral relapse at 24 weeks post-treatment follow-up. There was no additional benefit of adding NAs to IFN therapy for chronic hepatitis D; however, the combination of IFN + BLV significantly improved short-term HDV RNA clearance, which showed strong synergistic effects. The seven regimens included in the study did not contribute significantly to liver histological improvement. Therefore, the IFN + BLV combination has the most potential as a treatment option to improve the long-term prognosis or even cure chronic hepatitis D.Trial registrationThis systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number: CRD42022314544.).

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the most efficacious treatment for eradication of Helicobacter pylori with the lowest likelihood of some common adverse events among pre-recommended and newer treatment regimens.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase without language or date restrictions.Study selectionFull text reports of randomised controlled trials that compared different eradication treatments for H pylori among adults.ResultsOf the 15,565 studies identified, 143 were eligible and included. Data on 14 kinds of treatments were available. Of 91 possible comparisons for the efficacy outcome, 34 were compared directly and the following treatments performed better: seven days of concomitant treatment (proton pump inhibitor and three kinds of antibiotics administered together), 10 or 14 days of concomitant treatment, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment (standard triple treatment which is probiotic supplemented), 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment (proton pump inhibitor, levofloxacin, and antibiotic administered together), 14 days of hybrid treatment (proton pump inhibitor and amoxicillin used for seven days, followed by a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and 5-nitroimidazole for another seven days), and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment (five or seven days of a proton pump inhibitor plus amoxicillin, followed by five or seven additional days of a proton pump inhibitor plus clarithromycin and 5-nitroimidazole or amoxicillin). In terms of tolerance, all treatments were considered tolerable, but seven days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment and seven days of levofloxacin based triple treatment ranked best in terms of the proportion of adverse events reported.ConclusionComparison of different eradication treatments for H pylori showed that concomitant treatments, 10 or 14 days of probiotic supplemented triple treatment, 10 or 14 days of levofloxacin based triple treatment, 14 days of hybrid treatment, and 10 or 14 days of sequential treatment might be better alternatives for the eradication of H pylori.

Project description:Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Project description:Chronic kidney disease-mineral bone disorder is frequent in patients with renal failure. It is characterized by abnormalities in mineral and bone metabolism with resulting hyperphosphatemia, low serum vitamin D, secondary hyperparathyroidism, altered bone morphology and strength, higher risk of bone fractures, and development of vascular or other soft tissue calcifications. Besides the recommendation to reduce phosphorus dietary intake, many drugs are currently available for the treatment of calcium/phosphate imbalance. Among them, phosphate binders represent a milestone. Calcium-based binders (calcium carbonate, calcium acetate) are effective in lowering serum phosphate, but their use has been associated with an increased risk of hypercalcemia and calcifications. Calcium-free binders (sevelamer hydrochloride, sevelamer carbonate, and lanthanum carbonate) are equally or slightly less effective than calcium-containing compounds. They would not induce an increase in calcium levels but may have relevant side effects, including gastrointestinal symptoms for sevelamer and risk of tissue accumulation for lanthanum. Accordingly, new phosphate binders are under investigation and some of them have already been approved. A promising option is sucroferric oxyhydroxide (Velphoro(®), PA21), an iron-based phosphate binder consisting of a mixture of polynuclear iron(III)-oxyhydroxide, sucrose, and starches. The present review is focused on pharmacology, mode of action, and pharmacokinetics of sucroferric oxyhydroxide, with a discussion on comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability studies of this drug in chronic kidney disease and patient perspectives such as quality of life, satisfaction, and acceptability. Sucroferric oxyhydroxide has proven to be as effective as sevelamer in reducing phosphatemia with a similar safety profile and lower pill burden. Experimental and clinical studies have documented a minimal percentage of iron absorption without inducing toxicity. In conclusion, the overall benefit-risk balance of sucroferric oxyhydroxide is deemed to be positive, and this new drug may therefore represent a good alternative to traditional phosphate binders for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in dialysis patients.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion/conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Phosphate Binders in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets