Dataset Information

Covid-19 in end-stage renal disease patients with renal replacement therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2, showed various prevalence and case-fatality rates (CFR) among patients with different pre-existing chronic conditions. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with renal replacement therapy (RRT) might have a higher prevalence and CFR due to reduced immune function from uremia and kidney tropism of SARS-CoV-2, but there was a lack of systematic study on the infection and mortality of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in ESRD patients with various RRT.

Methodology/principal findings

We searched five electronic databases and performed a systematic review and meta-analysis up to June 30, 2020, to evaluate the prevalence and case fatality rate (CFR) of the COVID-19 infection among ESRD patients with RRT. The global COVID-19 data were retrieved from the international database on June 30, 2020, for estimating the prevalence and CFR of the general population as referencing points. Of 3,272 potential studies, 34 were eligible studies consisted of 1,944 COVID-19 confirmed cases in 21,873 ESRD patients with RRT from 12 countries in four WHO regions. The overall pooled prevalence in ESRD patients with RRT was 3.10% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-5.72] which was higher than referencing 0.14% global average prevalence. The overall estimated CFR of COVID-19 in ESRD patients with RRT was 18.06% (95% CI 14.09-22.32) which was higher than the global average at 4.98%.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggested high COVID-19 prevalence and CFR in ESRD patients with RRT. ESRD patients with RRT should have their specific protocol of COVID-19 prevention and treatment to mitigate excess cases and deaths.

SUBMITTER: Nopsopon T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8232454 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreased carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), a surrogate of increased aortic stiffness, is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To minimize the deleterious effects of an increased aortic stiffness in ESRD patients, several interventions have been developed and cf-PWV has been used to monitor responses.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the effects of pharmacologic interventions that target aortic stiffness on cf-PWV and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in adults with ESRD.Study designThis study implements a systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Health Technology Assessment, and EBM databases were searched.Study eligibility participants and interventionsRandomized and non-randomized studies involving adults (>18 years) with ESRD of any duration, receiving or not renal replacement therapy (hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis) and exposed to a pharmacologic intervention whose effects were assessed by cf-PWV.MethodsStudy screening, selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Narrative synthesis and quantitative data analysis summarized the review.ResultsWe included 1027 ESRD participants from 13 randomized and 5 non-randomized studies. Most pharmacologic interventions targeted bone mineral metabolism disorder or hypertension. Treatment with vitamin D analogues or cinacalcet did not decrease cf-PWV or SBP over placebo or matched controls (P > .05). Calcium-channel blockers (CCB) decreased cf-PWV and SBP compared with placebo or standard care (P < .05). Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors did not show any advantage over placebo in decreasing cf-PWV (P > .05).LimitationsQuality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Overall evidence was limited by the low number of studies, small sample sizes, and methodological inconsistencies.ConclusionsPharmacologic interventions targeting aortic stiffness in ESRD have mixed effects on reducing cf-PWV, with some strategies suggesting potential benefit. The quality of evidence, however, is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on their use to slow progression of aortic stiffness in ESRD. Further well-designed studies are needed to confirm these associations and their impact on cardiovascular outcomes in ESRD.Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016033463).

Project description:Demand for nursing home (NH) care by patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is likely to increase with growing numbers of older adults initiating chronic dialysis. We completed a systematic review to summarize the literature on NH residents with ESRD.MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and relevant conference proceedings were searched to identify articles using the following MESH terms or related key words in the title or abstract: "residential facilities", "renal dialysis", "renal replacement therapy", and "chronic kidney failure". We selected case control, cohort studies, and clinical trials that included older adults with ESRD (defined as those receiving chronic dialysis or those with stage 5 chronic kidney disease) living in residential care facilities. We abstracted information on study design, quality, and results.Of 198 unique citations identified by the search strategy, 14 articles met eligibility criteria. Most articles were multicenter studies that were conducted in the 1990 s. One study focused on patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease, and the remaining 13 studies focused on patients receiving chronic dialysis, of which eight studies included only those receiving peritoneal dialysis, four studies included patients receiving both peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, and one study included only patients receiving hemodialysis. All studies were observational, no clinical trials were identified, and study design limitations and heterogeneity within study populations were common. Summarizing results across these studies suggests that NH residents with ESRD have limited survival, particularly early after dialysis initiation. Functional impairment is highly prevalent in this population and independently associated with poor outcomes.NH residents with ESRD appear to be a particularly vulnerable population, but current information on their prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes is limited. Further research is needed to provide a better understanding of modifiable predictors of survival and functional decline in this population.

Project description:PurposeEmerging data suggest that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has extrapulmonary manifestations but its renal manifestations are not clearly defined. We aimed to evaluate renal complications of COVID-19 and their incidence using a systematic meta-analysis.DesignObservational studies reporting renal complications in COVID-19 patients were sought from MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2019 to June 2020. The nine-star Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate methodological quality. Incidence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models.ResultsWe included 22 observational cohort studies comprising of 17,391 COVID-19 patients. Quality scores of studies ranged from 4 to 6. The pooled prevalence of pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease was 5.2% (2.8-8.1) and 2.3% (1.8-2.8), respectively. The pooled incidence over follow-up of 2-28 days was 12.5% (10.1-15.0) for electrolyte disturbance (e.g. hyperkalaemia), 11.0% (7.4-15.1) for acute kidney injury (AKI) and 6.8% (1.0-17.0) for renal replacement therapy (RRT). In subgroup analyses, there was a higher incidence of AKI in US populations and groups with higher prevalence of pre-existing CKD.ConclusionsFrequent renal complications reported among hospitalized COVID-19 patients are electrolyte disturbance, AKI and RRT. Aggressive monitoring and management of these renal complications may help in the prediction of favourable outcomes. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020186873 KEY MESSAGES COVID-19 affects multiple organs apart from the respiratory system; however, its renal manifestations are not clearly defined. In this systematic meta-analysis of 22 observational cohort studies, the prevalence of pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD) in COVID-19 patients was 5.2%. The most frequent renal complication was electrolyte disturbance (particularly hyperkalaemia) with an incidence of 12.5% followed by acute kidney injury (AKI) with an incidence of 11.0%; US populations and groups with higher prevalence of CKD had higher incidence of AKI.

Project description:BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a potentially fatal complication of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Binding of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, to its viral receptor, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), results in viral entry and may cause AKI.ObjectivesWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the frequencies of AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill COVID-19 patients and compared those frequencies with patients who were infected by respiratory viruses that bind or downregulate ACE2 (ACE2-associated viruses) and viruses that do not bind nor downregulate ACE2 (non-ACE2-associated viruses).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingObservational studies on COVID-19 and other respiratory viral infections reporting AKI and RRT were included. The exclusion criteria were non-English articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, review articles, studies that included patients under the age of 18, studies including fewer than 10 patients, and studies not reporting AKI and RRT rates.PatientsAdult COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and influenza patients.MeasurementsWe extracted the following data from the included studies: author, year, study location, age, sex, race, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, shock, vasopressor use, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU mortality, AKI, and RRT.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles reporting AKI or RRT. AKI was defined by authors of included studies. Critical illness was defined by ICU admission. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates for the AKI and RRT rate within each virus group using a random intercept logistic regression model.ResultsOf 23 655 hospitalized, critically ill COVID-19 patients, AKI frequencies were not significantly different between COVID-19 patients (51%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44%-57%) and critically ill patients infected with ACE2-associated (56%, 95% CI: 37%-74%, P = .610) or non-ACE2-associated viruses (63%, 95% CI: 43%-79%, P = .255). Pooled RRT rates were also not significantly different between critically ill, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (20%, 95% CI: 16%-24%) and ACE2-associated viruses (18%, 95% CI: 8%-33%, P = .747). RRT rates for both COVID-19 and ACE2-associated viruses were significantly different (P < .001 for both) from non-ACE2-associated viruses (49%, 95% CI: 44%-54%). After adjusting for shock or vasopressor use, AKI and RRT rates were not significantly different between groups.LimitationsLimitations of this study include the heterogeneity of definitions of AKI that were used across different virus studies. We could not match severity of infection or do propensity matching across studies. Most of the included studies were conducted in retrospective fashion. Last, we did not include non-English publications.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that viral ACE2 association does not significantly alter the rates of AKI and RRT among critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, the rate of RRT is lower in patients with COVID-19 or ACE2-associated viruses when compared with patients infected with non-ACE2-binding viruses, which might partly be due to the lower frequencies of shock and use of vasopressors in these two virus groups. Prospective studies are necessary to demonstrate whether modulation of the ACE2 axis with Renin-Angiotensin System inhibitors impacts the rates of AKI and whether they are beneficial or harmful in COVID-19 patients.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evolvements in the design, fixation methods, size, and bearing surface of implants for total hip replacement (THR) have led to a variety of options for healthcare professionals to consider. The need to determine the most optimal combinations of THR implant is warranted. This systematic review evaluated the clinical effectiveness of different types of THR used for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in major health databases. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews published from 2008 onwards comparing different types of primary THR in patients with end stage arthritis of the hip were included. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs and five systematic reviews were included. Patients experienced significant post-THR improvements in Harris Hip scores, but this did not differ between impact types. There was a reduced risk of implant dislocation after receiving a larger femoral head size (36 mm vs. 28 mm; RR?=?0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.78) or cemented cup (vs. cementless cup; pooled odds ratio: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.89). Recipients of cross-linked vs. conventional polyethylene cup liners experienced reduced femoral head penetration and revision. There was no impact of femoral stem fixation and cup shell design on implant survival rates. Evidence on mortality and complications (aseptic loosening, femoral fracture) was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of evidence was inconclusive due to poor reporting, missing data, or uncertainty in treatment estimates. The findings warrant cautious interpretation given the risk of bias (blinding, attrition), methodological limitations (small sample size, low event counts, short follow-up), and poor reporting. Long-term pragmatic RCTs are needed to allow for more definitive conclusions. Authors are encouraged to specify the minimal clinically important difference and power calculation for their primary outcome(s) as well CONSORT, PRISMA and STROBE guidelines to ensure better reporting and more reliable production and assessment of evidence.