Synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics for people with chronic kidney disease.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem affecting 13% of the global population. Prior research has indicated that CKD is associated with gut dysbiosis. Gut dysbiosis may lead to the development and/or progression of CKD, which in turn may in turn lead to gut dysbiosis as a result of uraemic toxins, intestinal wall oedema, metabolic acidosis, prolonged intestinal transit times, polypharmacy (frequent antibiotic exposures) and dietary restrictions used to treat CKD. Interventions such as synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics may improve the balance of the gut flora by altering intestinal pH, improving gut microbiota balance and enhancing gut barrier function (i.e. reducing gut permeability). This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics for people with CKD. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) measuring and reporting the effects of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in any combination and any formulation given to people with CKD (CKD stages 1 to 5, including dialysis and kidney transplant). Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Forty-five studies (2266 randomised participants) were included in this review. Study participants were adults (two studies in children) with CKD ranging from stages 1 to 5, with patients receiving and not receiving dialysis, of whom half also had diabetes and hypertension. No studies investigated the same synbiotic, prebiotic or probiotic of similar strains, doses, or frequencies. Most studies were judged to be low risk for selection bias, performance bias and reporting bias, unclear risk for detection bias and for control of confounding factors, and high risk for attrition and other biases. Compared to prebiotics, it is uncertain whether synbiotics improve estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at four weeks (1 study, 34 participants: MD -3.80 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -17.98 to 10.38), indoxyl sulfate at four weeks (1 study, 42 participants: MD 128.30 ng/mL, 95% CI -242.77 to 499.37), change in gastrointestinal (GI) upset (borborymgi) at four weeks (1 study, 34 participants: RR 15.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 236.23), or change in GI upset (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale) at 12 months (1 study, 56 participants: MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.27), because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to certain strains of prebiotics, it is uncertain whether a different strain of prebiotics improves eGFR at 12 weeks (1 study, 50 participants: MD 0.00 mL/min, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.73), indoxyl sulfate at six weeks (2 studies, 64 participants: MD -0.20 μg/mL, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.61; I² = 0%) or change in any GI upset, intolerance or microbiota composition, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to certain strains of probiotics, it is uncertain whether a different strain of probiotic improves eGFR at eight weeks (1 study, 30 participants: MD -0.64 mL/min, 95% CI -9.51 to 8.23; very low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether synbiotics improve eGFR at six or 12 weeks (2 studies, 98 participants: MD 1.42 mL/min, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.2) or change in any GI upset or intolerance at 12 weeks because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether prebiotics improves indoxyl sulfate at eight weeks (2 studies, 75 participants: SMD -0.14 mg/L, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.31; very low certainty evidence) or microbiota composition because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether probiotics improve eGFR at eight, 12 or 15 weeks (3 studies, 128 participants: MD 2.73 mL/min, 95% CI -2.28 to 7.75; I² = 78%), proteinuria at 12 or 24 weeks (1 study, 60 participants: MD -15.60 mg/dL, 95% CI -34.30 to 3.10), indoxyl sulfate at 12 or 24 weeks (2 studies, 83 participants: MD -4.42 mg/dL, 95% CI -9.83 to 1.35; I² = 0%), or any change in GI upset or intolerance because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Probiotics may have little or no effect on albuminuria at 12 or 24 weeks compared to placebo or no treatment (4 studies, 193 participants: MD 0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). For all comparisons, adverse events were poorly reported and were minimal (flatulence, nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain) and non-serious, and withdrawals were not related to the study treatment. We found very few studies that adequately test biotic supplementation as alternative treatments for improving kidney function, GI symptoms, dialysis outcomes, allograft function, patient-reported outcomes, CVD, cancer, reducing uraemic toxins, and adverse effects. We are not certain whether synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics are more or less effective compared to one another, antibiotics, or standard care for improving patient outcomes in people with CKD. Adverse events were uncommon and mild.

Cooper TE ，Khalid R ，Chan S ，Craig JC ，Hawley CM ，Howell M ，Johnson DW ，Jaure A ，Teixeira-Pinto A ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Fenoldopam for preventing and treating acute kidney injury.

Fenoldopam is a short-acting benzazepine selective dopaminergic A1 (DA1) receptor agonist with increased activity at the D1 receptor compared with dopamine. Activation of the DA1 receptors increases kidney blood flow because of dilatation of the afferent and efferent arterioles. Previous reviews have been published on the efficacy and safety of fenoldopam for acute kidney injury (AKI); however, they either combined data on its effect on both prevention and treatment of AKI, focused on only those undergoing cardiac surgery and/or excluded children. This review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of fenoldopam for the prevention or treatment of AKI in children and adults. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 November 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fenoldopam for the prevention or treatment of AKI in children and adults following surgery, radiocontrast exposure or sepsis. Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed the studies for risk of bias and extracted data from the studies. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI was used. Statistical analysis was performed using the random-effects model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We identified 25 RCTs, including 3339 randomised participants. Twenty-three studies used fenoldopam for preventing AKI and two for the treatment of AKI. Nine studies included participants undergoing cardiac surgery, and one included children. The risks of bias for sequence generation and concealment were low in 11 and 13 studies, respectively. Only 13 and 18 studies were at low risk of performance bias and detection bias, respectively. The risk of attrition bias and selective reporting were judged to be at low risk of bias in 17 and 10 studies, respectively. We included data in the meta-analyses from eight of the 14 studies comparing fenoldopam with placebo or saline, all six studies comparing fenoldopam with dopamine, all five studies comparing fenoldopam with N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for the prevention of AKI and from the two studies comparing fenoldopam with placebo or saline for the treatment of AKI. Compared with placebo or saline fenoldopam probably results in fewer participants developing AKI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.98; 8 studies, 1147 participants; I2 = 48%; moderate certainty) but may make little or no difference to the number requiring kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.15; 7 studies, 835 participants; I2 = 17%), risk of death (RR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.00; 7 studies, 944 participants; I2 = 0%) or change in urine output (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.84; 2 studies, 58 participants; I2 = 34%; all low certainty). Fenoldopam may result in a shorter stay in the ICU (MD -1.81 days; 95% CI -2.41 to -1.21; 4 studies, 403 participants; I2 = 0%). It is uncertain whether adverse events (hypotension, myocardial infarction, drug intolerance, cardiac arrhythmias) differed between the treatment groups as the certainty of the evidence was very low. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, fenoldopam, compared to placebo or saline, may make little or no difference to the prevention of AKI, the need for KRT or death. Compared with dopamine, fenoldopam may make little or no difference to the prevention of AKI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.68; 4 studies, 398 participants; I2 = 78%), the number requiring KRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.87; 4 studies, 434 participants; I2 = 0%) or the risk of death (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.50; 2 studies, 174 participants; I2 = 0%) (all low certainty). It is uncertain whether participants receiving fenoldopam were more likely to develop hypotension compared with those receiving dopamine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 1.06 to 8.52; 1 study, 80 participants; very low certainty). Change in urine output was not reported. It is uncertain whether fenoldopam compared with NAC prevents AKI (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.56; 3 studies, 359 participants; I2 = 38%), reduces the need for KRT (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.26; 2 studies, 137 participants; I2 = 0%), or the risk of death (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.66; 1 study, 39 participants) (all very low certainty). It is uncertain whether hypotension was more frequent with fenoldopam (RR 5.10, 95% CI 0.25, 104.94; 1 study, 192 participants; very low certainty). Change in urine output was not reported. In participants with established AKI, it is uncertain whether fenoldopam compared to placebo or half saline reduces the numbers needing KRT (RR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.54; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 58%; very low certainty) or the risk of death (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.48; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 66%; very low certainty), or if it increases the risk of hypotension (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.22; 2 studies, 822 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). Fenoldopam administration in patients at risk of AKI is probably associated with a lower risk of developing AKI and shorter ICU stay when compared with placebo or saline, but has little or no effect on the need for KRT or the risk of death. In those undergoing cardiac surgery, fenoldopam may not confer any benefits compared with placebo or saline. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether fenoldopam is more or less effective than either dopamine or NAC in reducing the risk for AKI or the need for KRT. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies are required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenoldopam in preventing or treating AKI.

Esezobor CI ，Bhatt GC ，Effa EE ，Hodson EM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome.

Larun L ，Brurberg KG ，Odgaard-Jensen J ，Price JR ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis.

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants). To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy. Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Tunnicliffe DJ ，Palmer SC ，Cashmore BA ，Saglimbene VM ，Krishnasamy R ，Lambert K ，Johnson DW ，Craig JC ，Strippoli GF ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cryotherapy following total knee replacement.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012. To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022. We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success. We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success. The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.

Aggarwal A ，Adie S ，Harris IA ，Naylor J ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》