Nephrology

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is associated with worse in-hospital and short-term outcomes after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure, a nationwide study shows.

Patients with ESRD were particularly vulnerable, having about 6.5-fold higher odds of in-hospital mortality than those without CKD and about 11.5-fold higher odds than those with CKD, even after adjustment for potential confounders.

Patients with CKD had higher rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and more short-term readmissions for bleeding, Keerat Rai Ahuja, MD, Reading Hospital-Tower Health, West Reading, Pennsylvania, and colleagues reported August 16 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CKD and ESRD are known to be associated with an increased risk for stroke and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), yet data are limited on the safety and efficacy of LAA closure for stroke prevention in AFib patients with CKD or ESRD, they note.  

“It’s important to know about CKD and understand that there may be an association with worse levels of CKD and worse outcomes, but the data that strikes me is really that for end-stage renal disease,” Matthew Sherwood, MD, MHS, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

He noted that data have not been published for patients with CKD and ESRD enrolled in the pivotal PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials of Boston Scientific’s Watchman device or from large clinical registries such as EWOLUTION and the company’s continued access protocol registries.

Further, it’s not well understood what the best strategy is to prevent stroke in AFib patients with ESRD and whether they benefit from anticoagulation with warfarin or any of the newer agents. “Thus, it’s hard to then say: ‘Well they have worse outcomes with Watchman,’ which is true as shown in this study, but they may not have any other options based upon the lack of data for oral anticoagulants in end-stage kidney disease patients,” said Dr. Sherwood, from the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

The lack of clarity is concerning, given rising atrial fibrillation cases and the prevalence of abnormal renal function in everyday practice. In the present study – involving 21,274 patients undergoing LAA closure between 2016 and 2017 in the Nationwide Readmissions Database – 18.6% of patients had CKD stages I to V and 2.7% had ESRD based on ICD-10 codes.

In-hospital mortality was increased only in patients with ESRD. In all, 3.3% of patients with ESRD and 0.4% of those with no CKD died in hospital (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 6.48), as did 0.5% of patients with CKD (aOR, 11.43; both P <.001).

“These patients represent a sicker population at baseline and have an inherent greater risk for mortality in cardiac interventions, as noted in other studies of structural heart interventions,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD had a higher risk for in-hospital stroke or TIA than patients with no CKD (1.8% vs. 1.3%; aOR, 1.35; P = .038) and this risk continued up to 90 days after discharge (1.7% vs. 1.0%; aOR, 1.67; P = .007).

The in-hospital stroke rate was numerically higher in patients with ESRD compared with no CKD (aOR, 1.18; P = .62).

The authors point out that previous LAA closure and CKD studies have reported no differences in in-hospital or subsequent stroke/TIA rates in patients with and without CKD. Possible explanations are that patients with CKD in the present study had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores than those without CKD (4.18 vs. 3.62) and, second, patients with CKD and AFib are known to have higher risk for thromboembolic events than those with AFib without CKD.

CKD patients were also more likely than those without CKD to experience in-hospital acute kidney injury or hemodialysis (aOR, 5.02; P <.001).

CKD has been shown to be independently associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) after LAA closure. AKI may have long-term thromboembolic consequences, the authors suggest, with one study reporting higher stroke risk at midterm follow-up in patients with AKI.

“As with other cardiac interventions in patients with CKD, efforts should be made to optimize preoperative renal function, minimize contrast volume, and avoid abrupt hemodynamic changes such as hypotension during the procedure to prevent AKI,” Dr. Ahuja and colleagues write.

Patients with CKD and ESRD had longer index length of stay than those without CKD but had similar rates of other in-hospital complications, such as systemic embolization, bleeding/transfusion, vascular complications, and pericardial tamponade requiring intervention.

Among the short-term outcomes, 30- and 90-day all-cause readmissions were increased in patients with CKD and ESRD compared with those without CKD, and 30-day bleeding readmissions were increased within the CKD cohort.

“With Watchman and left atrial appendage closure, what we see is that they have higher rates of readmission and other problems,” Dr. Sherwood said. “I think we understand that that’s probably related not to the procedure itself, not because the Watchman doesn’t work for end-stage kidney disease, but because the patients themselves are likely higher risk.”

Commonly used risk scores for atrial fibrillation, however, don’t take into account advanced kidney disease, he added.

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies, Dr. Sherwood and the authors point to the lack of laboratory variables and procedural variables in the database, the fact that CKD was defined using ICD-10 codes, that outcomes were not clinically adjudicated, that unmeasured confounders likely still exist, and that long-term follow-up is lacking.

Dr. Sherwood, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that the release of outcomes data from CKD and ESRD patients in the major clinical trials would be helpful going forward, as would possible involvement with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes organization.

“One of the main points of this study is that we just need a lot more research diving into this patient population,” he said.

The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sherwood reports honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic. Editorial coauthor Sean Pokorney reports research grant support from Gilead, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and the Food and Drug Administration; and advisory board, consulting, and honoraria supports from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Philips, and Zoll.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the calcineurin inhibitor voclosporin (Lupkynis) in January and belimumab (Benlysta) a month before that, clinicians now have new options for treating lupus nephritis in combination with a background immunosuppressive agent, such as mycophenolate mofetil.

But which combination should clinicians choose?

Brad Rovin, MD, a nephrologist with the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, who worked on the phase 3 voclosprin trial, pointed to that drug’s fast reduction in proteinuria in a session of the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) 2021 Annual Meeting. That effect on proteinuria is likely due to its effect on podocytes, special epithelial cells that cover the outside of capillaries in the kidney, he said.

These crucial cells have an elaborate cytoskeleton that is stabilized by the protein synaptopodin, which can be subject to harm from calcineurin. But because voclosporin blocks calcineurin, synaptopodin is protected, which consequently protects podocytes and the kidney, Dr. Rovin said.

“There’s a lot of data in the nephrology literature that suggests as you lose podocytes, you actually can develop glomerular sclerosis and loss of renal function,” he said. “In fact, if you lose a critical number of podocytes, then no matter what you do, the kidney is likely to progress to end-stage kidney disease.

“The way I think about it now is, what else do these drugs add? And this idea of preserving the histology of the kidney is really important, and this can be done with voclosporin,” Dr. Rovin said.

Belimumab is also hailed as an effective tool, particularly for the prevention of flares. In the trial leading to its approval), just under 16% of patients experienced a renal-related event or death over 2 years, compared with 28% of the group that received placebo. Those receiving belimumab had a 50% greater chance of reaching the primary efficacy renal response, which was defined as a ratio of urinary protein to creatinine of 0.7 or less, an estimated glomerular filtration rate that was no worse than 20% below the pre-flare value or at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m², and no use of rescue therapy for treatment failure.

The endpoints in the belimumab lupus nephritis trial were “quite rigorous,” Richard A. Furie, MD, said in the same session at the meeting. Patients with class V lupus nephritis were included in the trial, although disease of this severity is known to be particularly difficult to treat, he noted.

“There’s little question that our patients with lupus nephritis will benefit from such a therapeutic approach” with belimumab and mycophenolate, said Dr. Furie, professor of medicine at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, in Hempstead, N.Y. “But regardless of which combination clinicians use, we are making advances, and that means better outcomes for our patients with lupus and lupus nephritis.”

Graciela Alarcon, MD, MPH, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who moderated the discussion, said there is no sure answer regarding the best choice for clinicians.

“As long as there’s no head-to-head comparison between the two new compounds, I don’t think that the question can be answered,” she said.

Indeed, the answer for many clinicians might be that for certain patients, dual therapy isn’t necessary, Dr. Furie said.

“The fundamental question, before we choose the second drug, is whether a second drug should be chosen,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in the community who are just sticking to the old-fashioned algorithm and that is just choosing one drug, like mycophenolate. ... Others might pick a second drug, but not until they see that mycophenolate is not doing an effective job.”

All agreed that the response rates are still not optimal for patients with lupus nephritis, even with these new combinations – they are still only in the 30%-40% range.

“We haven’t really boosted the response rate to where we want it to be, at least as measured by our current measurements and composite renal response,” Dr. Rovin said.

With voclosporin’s protective effects and belimumab’s flare prevention, the two could potentially be used together at some point, he suggested.

“I think these two drugs show us the possibility that we might use them together and get rid of the older drugs, and really minimize the older drugs and then use them on a longer-term basis to preserve kidney function, as well as keep the lupus in check,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes – the leading cause of kidney disease – those who received vitamin D supplements as opposed to placebo for close to 3 years did not have significant differences in kidney function, in a secondary analysis of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study.

However, most of these adults with prediabetes plus obesity or overweight also had sufficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a low risk for adverse kidney outcomes at study entry.

“The benefits of vitamin D might be greater in people with low blood vitamin D levels and/or reduced kidney function,” lead author Sun H. Kim, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, speculated in a statement from the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was published online August 6 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

“The D2d study is unique because we recruited individuals with high-risk prediabetes, having two out of three abnormal glucose values, and we recruited more than 2,000 participants, representing the largest vitamin D diabetes prevention trial to date,” Dr. Kim pointed out.

Although the study did not show a benefit of vitamin D supplements on kidney function outcomes, 43% of participants were already taking up to 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily when they entered the study, she noted.

A subgroup analysis of individuals who were not taking vitamin D at study entry found that vitamin D supplements were associated with lowered proteinuria, “which means that it could have a beneficial effect on kidney health,” said Dr. Kim, cautioning that “additional studies are needed to look into this further.”
 

Effect of vitamin D on three kidney function outcomes

Although low levels of serum 25(OH)D are associated with kidney disease, few trials have evaluated how vitamin D supplements might affect kidney function, Dr. Kim and colleagues write.

The D2d trial, they note, found that vitamin D supplements did not lower the risk of incident diabetes in people with prediabetes recruited from medical centers across the United States, as previously reported in 2019.

However, since then, meta-analyses that included the D2d trial have reported a significant 11%-12% reduction in diabetes risk in people with prediabetes who took vitamin D supplements.

The current secondary analysis of D2d aimed to investigate whether vitamin D supplements affect kidney function in people with prediabetes.

A total of 2,166 participants in D2d with complete kidney function data were included in the analysis.

The three study outcomes were change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline, change in urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline, and worsening Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) risk score (which takes eGFR and UACR into account).

At baseline, patients were a mean age of 60, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m², and 44% were women.

Most (79%) had hypertension, 52% were receiving antihypertensives, and 33% were receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Participants had a mean serum 25(OH) level of 28 ng/mL.

They had a mean eGFR of 87 mL/min/1.73 m² and a mean UACR of 11 mg/g. Only 10% had a moderate, high, or very high KDIGO risk score.

Participants were randomized to receive a daily gel pill containing 4,000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or placebo.

Medication adherence was high (83%) in both groups during a median follow-up of 2.9 years.

There was no significant between-group difference in the following kidney function outcomes:

• 28 patients in the vitamin D group and 30 patients in the placebo group had a worsening KDIGO risk score.
• The mean difference in eGFR from baseline was -1.0 mL/min/1.73 m² in the vitamin D group and -0.1 mL/min/1.73 m² in the placebo group.
• The mean difference in UACR from baseline was 2.7 mg/g in the vitamin D group and 2.0 mg/g in the placebo group.  

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association publicly acknowledged in November 2020 that race is a social construct without biological basis, with many other leading medical organizations following suit.¹ Historically, biased science based on observed human physical differences has incorrectly asserted a racial biological hierarchy.^2,3 Today, leading health care organizations recognize that the effects of racist policies in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system contribute to health disparities and have a disproportionately negative impact on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.^3,4 

Racial classification systems are fraught with bias. Trying to classify a complex and nuanced identity such as race into discrete categories does not capture the extensive heterogeneity at the individual level or within the increasingly diverse, multiracial population.⁵ Racial and ethnic categories used in collecting census data and research, as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget, have evolved over time.⁶ These changes in classification are a reflection of changes in the political environment, not changes in scientific knowledge of race and ethnicity.⁶

The Use of Race in Research and Practice

In the United States, racial minorities bear a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality across all major disease categories.³ These disparities cannot be explained by genetics.⁴ The Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed that racial categories have no biologic or genetic basis and that there is more intraracial than interracial genetic variation.³ Nevertheless, significant misapplication of race in medical research and clinical practice remains. Instead of attributing observed differences in health outcomes between racial groups to innate physiological differences between the groups, clinicians and researchers must carefully consider the impact of racism.⁷ This includes considering the complex interactions between socioeconomic, political, and environmental factors, and how they affect health.³

While race is not biologic, the effects of racism can have biologic effects, and advocates appropriately cite the need to collect race as an important category in epidemiological analysis. When race and ethnicity are used as a study variable, bioethicists Kaplan and Bennett recommend that researchers: (1) account for limitations due to imprecision of racial categories; (2) avoid attributing causality when there is an association between race/ethnicity and a health outcome; and (3) refrain from exacerbating racial disparities.⁶

At the bedside, race has become embedded in clinical, seemingly objective, decision-making tools used across medical specialties.⁸ These algorithms often use observational outcomes data and draw conclusions by explicitly or implicitly assuming biological differences among races. By crudely adjusting for race without identifying the root cause for observed racial differences, these tools can further magnify health inequities.⁸ With the increased recognition that race cannot be used as a proxy for genetic ancestry, and that racial and ethnic categories are complex sociopolitical constructs that have changed over time, the practice of race-based medicine is increasingly being criticized.⁸

This article presents a case for the removal of the race coefficient from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculations that exacerbate disparities in kidney health by overestimating kidney function in Black patients.⁸ The main justification for using the race coefficient stems from the disproven assumption that Black people have more muscle mass compared with non-Black people.⁹  The questioning of this racist assertion has led to a national movement to reevaluate the use of race in eGFR calculations.

Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease

According to epidemiological data published by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN), 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹⁰ Black Americans make up 13% of the US population yet they account for more than 30% of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and 35% of those on dialysis.^10,11 There is a 3 times greater risk for progression from early-stage CKD to ESKD in Black Americans when compared to the risk for White Americans.¹¹ Black patients are younger at the time of CKD diagnosis and, once diagnosed, experience a faster progression to ESKD.¹² These disparities are partially attributable to delays in diagnosis, preventative measures, and referrals to nephrology care.¹²  

In a VA medical center study, although Black patients were referred to nephrology care at higher rates than White patients, Black patients had faster progression to CKD stage 5.¹³ An earlier study showed that, at any given eGFR, Black patients have higher levels of albuminuria compared to White patients.¹⁴ While the reasons behind this observation are likely complex and multifactorial, one hypothesis is that Black patients were already at a more advanced stage of kidney disease at the time of referral as a result of the overestimation of eGFR calculations related to the use of a race coefficient.

Additionally, numerous analyses have revealed that Black patients are less likely to be identified as transplant candidates, less likely to be referred for transplant evaluation and, once on the waiting list, wait longer than do White patients.^11,15

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

It is imperative that clinicians have the most accurate measure of GFR to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate management in patients with CKD. The gold standard for determining renal function requires measuring GFR using an ideal, exogenous, filtration marker such as iothalamate. However, this process is complex and time-consuming, rendering it infeasible in routine care. As a result, we usually estimate GFR using endogenous serum markers such as creatinine and cystatin C. Due to availability and cost, serum creatinine (SCr) is the most widely used marker for estimating kidney function. However, many pitfalls are inherent in its use, including the effects of tubular secretion, extrarenal clearance, and day-to-day variability in creatinine generation related to muscle mass, diet, and activity.¹⁶ The 2 most widely used estimation equations are the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equation; both equations incorporate correction factors for age, sex, and race. 

The VA uses MDRD, which was derived and validated in a cohort of 1628 patients that included only 197 Black patients (12%), resulting in an eGFR for Black patients that is 21% higher than is the eGFR for non-Black patients with the same SCr value.⁹ In the VA electronic health record, the race coefficient is incorporated directly into eGFR laboratory calculations based on the race that the veteran self-identified during intake. Because the laboratory reports only a race-adjusted eGFR, there is a lack of transparency as many health care providers and patients are unaware that a race coefficient is used in eGFR calculations at the VA.  

Case for Removing Race Coefficient

When applied to cohorts outside the original study, both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations have proved to be highly biased, imprecise, and inaccurate when compared to measured GFR (mGFR).^15,17 For any given eGFR, the possible mGFR may span 3 stages of CKD, underscoring the limitations of using such a crude estimate in clinical decision making.¹⁷ 

Current Kidney Estimation Pitfalls

A recent cohort study by Zelnick and colleagues that included 1658 self-identified Black adults showed less bias between mGFR and eGFR without the use of a race coefficient, and a shorter median time to transplant eligibility by 1.9 years.¹⁵ This study provides further evidence that these equations were derived from a biased observational data set that overestimates eGFR in Black patients living with CKD. This overestimation is particularly egregious for frail or malnourished patients with CKD and multiple comorbidities, with many potential harmful clinical consequences.

In addition, multiple international studies in African countries have demonstrated worse performance of eGFR calculations when using the race coefficient than without it. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, eGFR was calculated for adults using MDRD with and without the race coefficient, as well as CKD-EPI with and without the race coefficient, and then compared to mGFR. Both the MDRD and the CKD-EPI equations overestimated GFR when using the race coefficient, and notably the equations without the race coefficient had better correlation to mGFR.¹⁸ Similar data were also found in studies from South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Brazil, and Europe.^19-22

Clinical Consequences of Race Coefficient Use

The use of a race coefficient in these estimation equations causes adverse clinical outcomes. In early stages of CKD, overestimation of eGFR using the race coefficient can cause an under-recognition of CKD, and can lead to delays in diagnosis and failure to implement measures to slow its progression, such as minimizing drug-related nephrotoxic injury and iatrogenic acute kidney injury. Consequently, a patient with an overestimated eGFR may suffer an accelerated progression to ESKD and premature mortality from cardiovascular disease.²³ 

In advanced CKD stages, eGFR overestimation may result in delayed referral to a nephrologist (recommended at eGFR < 30mL/min/1.73 m²), nutrition counseling, renal replacement therapy education, timely referral for renal replacement therapy access placement, and transplant evaluation (can be listed when eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m²).^16,24,25 

In the Clinical Vignette, it is clear from the information presented that Mr. C’s concerns are well-founded. Table 1 presents the impact on eGFR caused by the race coefficient using the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations. In many VA systems, this overestimation would prevent him from being referred for a kidney transplant at this visit, thereby perpetuating racial health disparities in kidney transplantation. 

Concerns About Removal of Race From eGFR Calculations

Opponents of removing the race coefficient assert that a lower eGFR will preclude some patients from qualifying for medications such as metformin and certain anticoagulants, or that it may result in subtherapeutic dosing of drugs such as antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents.²⁶ These recommendations are in place for patient safety, so conversely maintaining the race coefficient and overestimating eGFR will expose some patients to medication toxicity. Another fear is that lower eGFRs will have the unintended consequence of limiting the kidney donor pool. However, this can be prevented by following current guidelines to use mGFR in settings where accurate GFR is imperative.¹⁶ Additionally, some nephrologists have expressed concern that diagnosing more patients with advanced stages of CKD will result in inappropriately early initiation of dialysis. Again, this risk can be mitigated by ensuring that nephrologists consider multiple clinical factors and data points, not simply eGFR when deciding to initiate dialysis. Also, an increase in referrals to nephrology may occur when the race coefficient is removed and increased wait times at some VA medical centers could be a concern. An increase in appropriate referrals would show that removing the race coefficient was having its intended effect—more veterans with advanced CKD being seen by nephrologists.

When considering the lack of biological plausibility, inaccuracy, and the clinical harms associated with the use of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations, the benefits of removing the race coefficient from eGFR calculations within the VA far outweigh any potential risks.  

A Call for Equity

The National Conversation on Race and eGFR

To advance health equity, members of the medical community have advocated for the removal of the race coefficient from eGFR calculations for years. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was the first establishment to institute this change in 2017. Since then, many health systems across the country that are affiliated with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers have removed the race coefficient from eGFR equations (Table 2). Many other hospital systems are contemplating this change. 

In July 2020, the NKF and the ASN established a joint task force dedicated to reassessing the inclusion of race in eGFR calculations. This task force acknowledges that race is a social, not biological, construct.¹² The NKF/ASN task force is now in the second of its 3-phase process. In March 2021, prior to publication of their phase 1 findings, they announced “(1) race modifiers should not be included in equations to estimate kidney function; and (2) current race-based equations should be replaced by a suitable approach that is accurate, inclusive, and standardized in every laboratory in the United States. Any such approach must not differentially introduce bias, inaccuracy, or inequalities.”²⁷

Health Equity in the VHA

In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through the federal government and its agencies. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States serving 9 million veterans and is one of the largest federal agencies. As VA clinicians, it is our responsibility to examine the evidence, consider national guidance, and ensure health equity for veterans by practicing unbiased medicine. The evidence and the interim guidance from the NKF-ASN task force clearly indicate that the race coefficient should no longer be used.²⁷ It is imperative that we make these changes immediately knowing that the use of race in kidney function calculators is harming Black veterans. Similar to finding evidence of harm in a treatment group in a clinical trial, it is unethical to wait. Removal of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations will allow VHA clinicians to provide timely and high-quality care to our patients as well as establish the VHA as a national leader in health equity.

VISN 12 Leads the Way

On May 11, 2021, the VA Great Lakes Health Care System, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 12, leaders responded to this author group’s call to advance health equity and voted to remove the race coefficient from eGFR calculations. Other VISNs should follow, and the VHA should continue to work with national leaders and experts to establish and implement superior tools to ensure the highest quality of kidney health care for all veterans.  

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the medical students across the nation who have been leading the charge on this important issue. The authors are also thankful for the collaboration and support of all members of the Jesse Brown for Black Lives (JB4BL) Task Force. 

The American Medical Association publicly acknowledged in November 2020 that race is a social construct without biological basis, with many other leading medical organizations following suit.¹ Historically, biased science based on observed human physical differences has incorrectly asserted a racial biological hierarchy.^2,3 Today, leading health care organizations recognize that the effects of racist policies in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system contribute to health disparities and have a disproportionately negative impact on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.^3,4 

Racial classification systems are fraught with bias. Trying to classify a complex and nuanced identity such as race into discrete categories does not capture the extensive heterogeneity at the individual level or within the increasingly diverse, multiracial population.⁵ Racial and ethnic categories used in collecting census data and research, as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget, have evolved over time.⁶ These changes in classification are a reflection of changes in the political environment, not changes in scientific knowledge of race and ethnicity.⁶

The Use of Race in Research and Practice

In the United States, racial minorities bear a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality across all major disease categories.³ These disparities cannot be explained by genetics.⁴ The Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed that racial categories have no biologic or genetic basis and that there is more intraracial than interracial genetic variation.³ Nevertheless, significant misapplication of race in medical research and clinical practice remains. Instead of attributing observed differences in health outcomes between racial groups to innate physiological differences between the groups, clinicians and researchers must carefully consider the impact of racism.⁷ This includes considering the complex interactions between socioeconomic, political, and environmental factors, and how they affect health.³

While race is not biologic, the effects of racism can have biologic effects, and advocates appropriately cite the need to collect race as an important category in epidemiological analysis. When race and ethnicity are used as a study variable, bioethicists Kaplan and Bennett recommend that researchers: (1) account for limitations due to imprecision of racial categories; (2) avoid attributing causality when there is an association between race/ethnicity and a health outcome; and (3) refrain from exacerbating racial disparities.⁶

At the bedside, race has become embedded in clinical, seemingly objective, decision-making tools used across medical specialties.⁸ These algorithms often use observational outcomes data and draw conclusions by explicitly or implicitly assuming biological differences among races. By crudely adjusting for race without identifying the root cause for observed racial differences, these tools can further magnify health inequities.⁸ With the increased recognition that race cannot be used as a proxy for genetic ancestry, and that racial and ethnic categories are complex sociopolitical constructs that have changed over time, the practice of race-based medicine is increasingly being criticized.⁸

This article presents a case for the removal of the race coefficient from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculations that exacerbate disparities in kidney health by overestimating kidney function in Black patients.⁸ The main justification for using the race coefficient stems from the disproven assumption that Black people have more muscle mass compared with non-Black people.⁹  The questioning of this racist assertion has led to a national movement to reevaluate the use of race in eGFR calculations.

Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease

According to epidemiological data published by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN), 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹⁰ Black Americans make up 13% of the US population yet they account for more than 30% of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and 35% of those on dialysis.^10,11 There is a 3 times greater risk for progression from early-stage CKD to ESKD in Black Americans when compared to the risk for White Americans.¹¹ Black patients are younger at the time of CKD diagnosis and, once diagnosed, experience a faster progression to ESKD.¹² These disparities are partially attributable to delays in diagnosis, preventative measures, and referrals to nephrology care.¹²  

In a VA medical center study, although Black patients were referred to nephrology care at higher rates than White patients, Black patients had faster progression to CKD stage 5.¹³ An earlier study showed that, at any given eGFR, Black patients have higher levels of albuminuria compared to White patients.¹⁴ While the reasons behind this observation are likely complex and multifactorial, one hypothesis is that Black patients were already at a more advanced stage of kidney disease at the time of referral as a result of the overestimation of eGFR calculations related to the use of a race coefficient.

Additionally, numerous analyses have revealed that Black patients are less likely to be identified as transplant candidates, less likely to be referred for transplant evaluation and, once on the waiting list, wait longer than do White patients.^11,15

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

It is imperative that clinicians have the most accurate measure of GFR to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate management in patients with CKD. The gold standard for determining renal function requires measuring GFR using an ideal, exogenous, filtration marker such as iothalamate. However, this process is complex and time-consuming, rendering it infeasible in routine care. As a result, we usually estimate GFR using endogenous serum markers such as creatinine and cystatin C. Due to availability and cost, serum creatinine (SCr) is the most widely used marker for estimating kidney function. However, many pitfalls are inherent in its use, including the effects of tubular secretion, extrarenal clearance, and day-to-day variability in creatinine generation related to muscle mass, diet, and activity.¹⁶ The 2 most widely used estimation equations are the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equation; both equations incorporate correction factors for age, sex, and race. 

The VA uses MDRD, which was derived and validated in a cohort of 1628 patients that included only 197 Black patients (12%), resulting in an eGFR for Black patients that is 21% higher than is the eGFR for non-Black patients with the same SCr value.⁹ In the VA electronic health record, the race coefficient is incorporated directly into eGFR laboratory calculations based on the race that the veteran self-identified during intake. Because the laboratory reports only a race-adjusted eGFR, there is a lack of transparency as many health care providers and patients are unaware that a race coefficient is used in eGFR calculations at the VA.  

Case for Removing Race Coefficient

When applied to cohorts outside the original study, both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations have proved to be highly biased, imprecise, and inaccurate when compared to measured GFR (mGFR).^15,17 For any given eGFR, the possible mGFR may span 3 stages of CKD, underscoring the limitations of using such a crude estimate in clinical decision making.¹⁷ 

Current Kidney Estimation Pitfalls

A recent cohort study by Zelnick and colleagues that included 1658 self-identified Black adults showed less bias between mGFR and eGFR without the use of a race coefficient, and a shorter median time to transplant eligibility by 1.9 years.¹⁵ This study provides further evidence that these equations were derived from a biased observational data set that overestimates eGFR in Black patients living with CKD. This overestimation is particularly egregious for frail or malnourished patients with CKD and multiple comorbidities, with many potential harmful clinical consequences.

In addition, multiple international studies in African countries have demonstrated worse performance of eGFR calculations when using the race coefficient than without it. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, eGFR was calculated for adults using MDRD with and without the race coefficient, as well as CKD-EPI with and without the race coefficient, and then compared to mGFR. Both the MDRD and the CKD-EPI equations overestimated GFR when using the race coefficient, and notably the equations without the race coefficient had better correlation to mGFR.¹⁸ Similar data were also found in studies from South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Brazil, and Europe.^19-22

Clinical Consequences of Race Coefficient Use

The use of a race coefficient in these estimation equations causes adverse clinical outcomes. In early stages of CKD, overestimation of eGFR using the race coefficient can cause an under-recognition of CKD, and can lead to delays in diagnosis and failure to implement measures to slow its progression, such as minimizing drug-related nephrotoxic injury and iatrogenic acute kidney injury. Consequently, a patient with an overestimated eGFR may suffer an accelerated progression to ESKD and premature mortality from cardiovascular disease.²³ 

In advanced CKD stages, eGFR overestimation may result in delayed referral to a nephrologist (recommended at eGFR < 30mL/min/1.73 m²), nutrition counseling, renal replacement therapy education, timely referral for renal replacement therapy access placement, and transplant evaluation (can be listed when eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m²).^16,24,25 

In the Clinical Vignette, it is clear from the information presented that Mr. C’s concerns are well-founded. Table 1 presents the impact on eGFR caused by the race coefficient using the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations. In many VA systems, this overestimation would prevent him from being referred for a kidney transplant at this visit, thereby perpetuating racial health disparities in kidney transplantation. 

Concerns About Removal of Race From eGFR Calculations

Opponents of removing the race coefficient assert that a lower eGFR will preclude some patients from qualifying for medications such as metformin and certain anticoagulants, or that it may result in subtherapeutic dosing of drugs such as antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents.²⁶ These recommendations are in place for patient safety, so conversely maintaining the race coefficient and overestimating eGFR will expose some patients to medication toxicity. Another fear is that lower eGFRs will have the unintended consequence of limiting the kidney donor pool. However, this can be prevented by following current guidelines to use mGFR in settings where accurate GFR is imperative.¹⁶ Additionally, some nephrologists have expressed concern that diagnosing more patients with advanced stages of CKD will result in inappropriately early initiation of dialysis. Again, this risk can be mitigated by ensuring that nephrologists consider multiple clinical factors and data points, not simply eGFR when deciding to initiate dialysis. Also, an increase in referrals to nephrology may occur when the race coefficient is removed and increased wait times at some VA medical centers could be a concern. An increase in appropriate referrals would show that removing the race coefficient was having its intended effect—more veterans with advanced CKD being seen by nephrologists.

When considering the lack of biological plausibility, inaccuracy, and the clinical harms associated with the use of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations, the benefits of removing the race coefficient from eGFR calculations within the VA far outweigh any potential risks.  

A Call for Equity

The National Conversation on Race and eGFR

To advance health equity, members of the medical community have advocated for the removal of the race coefficient from eGFR calculations for years. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was the first establishment to institute this change in 2017. Since then, many health systems across the country that are affiliated with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers have removed the race coefficient from eGFR equations (Table 2). Many other hospital systems are contemplating this change. 

In July 2020, the NKF and the ASN established a joint task force dedicated to reassessing the inclusion of race in eGFR calculations. This task force acknowledges that race is a social, not biological, construct.¹² The NKF/ASN task force is now in the second of its 3-phase process. In March 2021, prior to publication of their phase 1 findings, they announced “(1) race modifiers should not be included in equations to estimate kidney function; and (2) current race-based equations should be replaced by a suitable approach that is accurate, inclusive, and standardized in every laboratory in the United States. Any such approach must not differentially introduce bias, inaccuracy, or inequalities.”²⁷

Health Equity in the VHA

In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through the federal government and its agencies. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States serving 9 million veterans and is one of the largest federal agencies. As VA clinicians, it is our responsibility to examine the evidence, consider national guidance, and ensure health equity for veterans by practicing unbiased medicine. The evidence and the interim guidance from the NKF-ASN task force clearly indicate that the race coefficient should no longer be used.²⁷ It is imperative that we make these changes immediately knowing that the use of race in kidney function calculators is harming Black veterans. Similar to finding evidence of harm in a treatment group in a clinical trial, it is unethical to wait. Removal of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations will allow VHA clinicians to provide timely and high-quality care to our patients as well as establish the VHA as a national leader in health equity.

VISN 12 Leads the Way

On May 11, 2021, the VA Great Lakes Health Care System, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 12, leaders responded to this author group’s call to advance health equity and voted to remove the race coefficient from eGFR calculations. Other VISNs should follow, and the VHA should continue to work with national leaders and experts to establish and implement superior tools to ensure the highest quality of kidney health care for all veterans.  

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the medical students across the nation who have been leading the charge on this important issue. The authors are also thankful for the collaboration and support of all members of the Jesse Brown for Black Lives (JB4BL) Task Force. 

The American Medical Association publicly acknowledged in November 2020 that race is a social construct without biological basis, with many other leading medical organizations following suit.¹ Historically, biased science based on observed human physical differences has incorrectly asserted a racial biological hierarchy.^2,3 Today, leading health care organizations recognize that the effects of racist policies in housing, education, employment, and the criminal justice system contribute to health disparities and have a disproportionately negative impact on Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.^3,4 

Racial classification systems are fraught with bias. Trying to classify a complex and nuanced identity such as race into discrete categories does not capture the extensive heterogeneity at the individual level or within the increasingly diverse, multiracial population.⁵ Racial and ethnic categories used in collecting census data and research, as defined by the US Office of Management and Budget, have evolved over time.⁶ These changes in classification are a reflection of changes in the political environment, not changes in scientific knowledge of race and ethnicity.⁶

The Use of Race in Research and Practice

In the United States, racial minorities bear a disproportionate burden of morbidity and mortality across all major disease categories.³ These disparities cannot be explained by genetics.⁴ The Human Genome Project in 2003 confirmed that racial categories have no biologic or genetic basis and that there is more intraracial than interracial genetic variation.³ Nevertheless, significant misapplication of race in medical research and clinical practice remains. Instead of attributing observed differences in health outcomes between racial groups to innate physiological differences between the groups, clinicians and researchers must carefully consider the impact of racism.⁷ This includes considering the complex interactions between socioeconomic, political, and environmental factors, and how they affect health.³

While race is not biologic, the effects of racism can have biologic effects, and advocates appropriately cite the need to collect race as an important category in epidemiological analysis. When race and ethnicity are used as a study variable, bioethicists Kaplan and Bennett recommend that researchers: (1) account for limitations due to imprecision of racial categories; (2) avoid attributing causality when there is an association between race/ethnicity and a health outcome; and (3) refrain from exacerbating racial disparities.⁶

At the bedside, race has become embedded in clinical, seemingly objective, decision-making tools used across medical specialties.⁸ These algorithms often use observational outcomes data and draw conclusions by explicitly or implicitly assuming biological differences among races. By crudely adjusting for race without identifying the root cause for observed racial differences, these tools can further magnify health inequities.⁸ With the increased recognition that race cannot be used as a proxy for genetic ancestry, and that racial and ethnic categories are complex sociopolitical constructs that have changed over time, the practice of race-based medicine is increasingly being criticized.⁸

This article presents a case for the removal of the race coefficient from estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculations that exacerbate disparities in kidney health by overestimating kidney function in Black patients.⁸ The main justification for using the race coefficient stems from the disproven assumption that Black people have more muscle mass compared with non-Black people.⁹  The questioning of this racist assertion has led to a national movement to reevaluate the use of race in eGFR calculations.

Racial Disparities in Kidney Disease

According to epidemiological data published by the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and American Society of Nephrology (ASN), 37 million people in the United States have chronic kidney disease (CKD).¹⁰ Black Americans make up 13% of the US population yet they account for more than 30% of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and 35% of those on dialysis.^10,11 There is a 3 times greater risk for progression from early-stage CKD to ESKD in Black Americans when compared to the risk for White Americans.¹¹ Black patients are younger at the time of CKD diagnosis and, once diagnosed, experience a faster progression to ESKD.¹² These disparities are partially attributable to delays in diagnosis, preventative measures, and referrals to nephrology care.¹²  

In a VA medical center study, although Black patients were referred to nephrology care at higher rates than White patients, Black patients had faster progression to CKD stage 5.¹³ An earlier study showed that, at any given eGFR, Black patients have higher levels of albuminuria compared to White patients.¹⁴ While the reasons behind this observation are likely complex and multifactorial, one hypothesis is that Black patients were already at a more advanced stage of kidney disease at the time of referral as a result of the overestimation of eGFR calculations related to the use of a race coefficient.

Additionally, numerous analyses have revealed that Black patients are less likely to be identified as transplant candidates, less likely to be referred for transplant evaluation and, once on the waiting list, wait longer than do White patients.^11,15

Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

It is imperative that clinicians have the most accurate measure of GFR to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate management in patients with CKD. The gold standard for determining renal function requires measuring GFR using an ideal, exogenous, filtration marker such as iothalamate. However, this process is complex and time-consuming, rendering it infeasible in routine care. As a result, we usually estimate GFR using endogenous serum markers such as creatinine and cystatin C. Due to availability and cost, serum creatinine (SCr) is the most widely used marker for estimating kidney function. However, many pitfalls are inherent in its use, including the effects of tubular secretion, extrarenal clearance, and day-to-day variability in creatinine generation related to muscle mass, diet, and activity.¹⁶ The 2 most widely used estimation equations are the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study equation and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) creatinine equation; both equations incorporate correction factors for age, sex, and race. 

The VA uses MDRD, which was derived and validated in a cohort of 1628 patients that included only 197 Black patients (12%), resulting in an eGFR for Black patients that is 21% higher than is the eGFR for non-Black patients with the same SCr value.⁹ In the VA electronic health record, the race coefficient is incorporated directly into eGFR laboratory calculations based on the race that the veteran self-identified during intake. Because the laboratory reports only a race-adjusted eGFR, there is a lack of transparency as many health care providers and patients are unaware that a race coefficient is used in eGFR calculations at the VA.  

Case for Removing Race Coefficient

When applied to cohorts outside the original study, both the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations have proved to be highly biased, imprecise, and inaccurate when compared to measured GFR (mGFR).^15,17 For any given eGFR, the possible mGFR may span 3 stages of CKD, underscoring the limitations of using such a crude estimate in clinical decision making.¹⁷ 

Current Kidney Estimation Pitfalls

A recent cohort study by Zelnick and colleagues that included 1658 self-identified Black adults showed less bias between mGFR and eGFR without the use of a race coefficient, and a shorter median time to transplant eligibility by 1.9 years.¹⁵ This study provides further evidence that these equations were derived from a biased observational data set that overestimates eGFR in Black patients living with CKD. This overestimation is particularly egregious for frail or malnourished patients with CKD and multiple comorbidities, with many potential harmful clinical consequences.

In addition, multiple international studies in African countries have demonstrated worse performance of eGFR calculations when using the race coefficient than without it. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, eGFR was calculated for adults using MDRD with and without the race coefficient, as well as CKD-EPI with and without the race coefficient, and then compared to mGFR. Both the MDRD and the CKD-EPI equations overestimated GFR when using the race coefficient, and notably the equations without the race coefficient had better correlation to mGFR.¹⁸ Similar data were also found in studies from South Africa, the Ivory Coast, Brazil, and Europe.^19-22

Clinical Consequences of Race Coefficient Use

The use of a race coefficient in these estimation equations causes adverse clinical outcomes. In early stages of CKD, overestimation of eGFR using the race coefficient can cause an under-recognition of CKD, and can lead to delays in diagnosis and failure to implement measures to slow its progression, such as minimizing drug-related nephrotoxic injury and iatrogenic acute kidney injury. Consequently, a patient with an overestimated eGFR may suffer an accelerated progression to ESKD and premature mortality from cardiovascular disease.²³ 

In advanced CKD stages, eGFR overestimation may result in delayed referral to a nephrologist (recommended at eGFR < 30mL/min/1.73 m²), nutrition counseling, renal replacement therapy education, timely referral for renal replacement therapy access placement, and transplant evaluation (can be listed when eGFR < 20 mL/min/1.73 m²).^16,24,25 

In the Clinical Vignette, it is clear from the information presented that Mr. C’s concerns are well-founded. Table 1 presents the impact on eGFR caused by the race coefficient using the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations. In many VA systems, this overestimation would prevent him from being referred for a kidney transplant at this visit, thereby perpetuating racial health disparities in kidney transplantation. 

Concerns About Removal of Race From eGFR Calculations

Opponents of removing the race coefficient assert that a lower eGFR will preclude some patients from qualifying for medications such as metformin and certain anticoagulants, or that it may result in subtherapeutic dosing of drugs such as antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents.²⁶ These recommendations are in place for patient safety, so conversely maintaining the race coefficient and overestimating eGFR will expose some patients to medication toxicity. Another fear is that lower eGFRs will have the unintended consequence of limiting the kidney donor pool. However, this can be prevented by following current guidelines to use mGFR in settings where accurate GFR is imperative.¹⁶ Additionally, some nephrologists have expressed concern that diagnosing more patients with advanced stages of CKD will result in inappropriately early initiation of dialysis. Again, this risk can be mitigated by ensuring that nephrologists consider multiple clinical factors and data points, not simply eGFR when deciding to initiate dialysis. Also, an increase in referrals to nephrology may occur when the race coefficient is removed and increased wait times at some VA medical centers could be a concern. An increase in appropriate referrals would show that removing the race coefficient was having its intended effect—more veterans with advanced CKD being seen by nephrologists.

When considering the lack of biological plausibility, inaccuracy, and the clinical harms associated with the use of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations, the benefits of removing the race coefficient from eGFR calculations within the VA far outweigh any potential risks.  

A Call for Equity

The National Conversation on Race and eGFR

To advance health equity, members of the medical community have advocated for the removal of the race coefficient from eGFR calculations for years. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center was the first establishment to institute this change in 2017. Since then, many health systems across the country that are affiliated with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers have removed the race coefficient from eGFR equations (Table 2). Many other hospital systems are contemplating this change. 

In July 2020, the NKF and the ASN established a joint task force dedicated to reassessing the inclusion of race in eGFR calculations. This task force acknowledges that race is a social, not biological, construct.¹² The NKF/ASN task force is now in the second of its 3-phase process. In March 2021, prior to publication of their phase 1 findings, they announced “(1) race modifiers should not be included in equations to estimate kidney function; and (2) current race-based equations should be replaced by a suitable approach that is accurate, inclusive, and standardized in every laboratory in the United States. Any such approach must not differentially introduce bias, inaccuracy, or inequalities.”²⁷

Health Equity in the VHA

In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to advance racial equity and support underserved communities through the federal government and its agencies. The VHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States serving 9 million veterans and is one of the largest federal agencies. As VA clinicians, it is our responsibility to examine the evidence, consider national guidance, and ensure health equity for veterans by practicing unbiased medicine. The evidence and the interim guidance from the NKF-ASN task force clearly indicate that the race coefficient should no longer be used.²⁷ It is imperative that we make these changes immediately knowing that the use of race in kidney function calculators is harming Black veterans. Similar to finding evidence of harm in a treatment group in a clinical trial, it is unethical to wait. Removal of the race coefficient in eGFR calculations will allow VHA clinicians to provide timely and high-quality care to our patients as well as establish the VHA as a national leader in health equity.

VISN 12 Leads the Way

On May 11, 2021, the VA Great Lakes Health Care System, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 12, leaders responded to this author group’s call to advance health equity and voted to remove the race coefficient from eGFR calculations. Other VISNs should follow, and the VHA should continue to work with national leaders and experts to establish and implement superior tools to ensure the highest quality of kidney health care for all veterans.  

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the medical students across the nation who have been leading the charge on this important issue. The authors are also thankful for the collaboration and support of all members of the Jesse Brown for Black Lives (JB4BL) Task Force. 

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with sunitinib monotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of 2 treatment arms:

• Arm A: Nivolumab intravenously 240 mg every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib orally 40 mg once daily.
• Arm B: Sunitinib orally 50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy (6-week cycle).

Randomization was stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic risk score (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk). Treatment was continued until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxic side effects with a maximum of 2-year duration of Nivolumab therapy.

Settings and participants. Adults with previously untreated advanced RCC with a clear cell component were eligible for enrollment. Subjects were excluded if they had active central nervous system metastases or active autoimmune disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome of this study was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, safety, and PFS as assessed by investigators. All subgroup analyses were prespecified. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, including all patients who underwent randomization.

Main results. A total of 651 patients underwent randomization: 323 to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, and 328 to the sunitinib group. Baseline demographics were balanced. The median follow-up period for overall survival (OS) was 18.1 months. The primary reason for treatment discontinuation in any group was disease progression. PFS as indicated by an independent review committee was significantly longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (median 16.6 months vs 8.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, P < .001). The median OS was not reached for any group. Overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (HR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.89; P = .001). The objective response rate was 55.7% with the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .001). The complete response rate was 8% in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to 4.6% in the sunitinib group. The median time to response was 2.8 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 4.2 months in the sunitinib group, while the median duration of response was 20.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively.

Nearly all patients (about 99% in each group) had an adverse event (AE). Hypertension was the most common side effect, with grade 3 or higher seen in 12.5% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group and 13.1% in the sunitinib group. Other grade 3 or higher side effects occurring in at least 10% of patients in any group were hyponatremia, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and fatigue. AEs of any cause leading to discontinuation of the therapy occurred in 19.7% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group vs 16.9% of the sunitinib group. One death was considered to be treatment-related (small intestinal perforation) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 2 treatment-related deaths with sunitinib (pneumonia and respiratory distress). In the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, 57% of the patients had a dose reduction of cabozantinib and 52% had a reduction in sunitinib dosage.

Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptoms Index, patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group reported better health-related quality of life and less disease-related symptoms compared to the sunitinib group.

Commentary

The treatment landscape for frontline therapy for patients with advanced RCC has rapidly expanded over the last several years and has revolutionized cancer care. Ushered in by the results from the CheckMate 214 study highlighting the efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab in intermediate and poor risk patients, several subsequent trials have demonstrated improved outcomes with combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). To date, data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib), Javelin Renal 101 (avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib) and the CLEAR trial (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs levatinib plus everolimus vs sunitinib) have demonstrated superiority of immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations over sunitinb in the first-line setting.^1-5

The current phase 3, CheckMate 9ER trial adds yet another dynamic option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. While cross-trial comparisons are fraught with important caveats, the median PFS of almost 16.6 months and complete response rate of 8% the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compares favorably with other combinations. Data from the CLEAR study with the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab showed a complete response rate approaching 16%. Importantly, the current study highlights improved quality of life with the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab compared to sunitinib alone adding to the efficacy and benefits of this combination treatment.

The selection of first line therapy for patients with advanced RCC should be always guided by individual patient characteristics, and any single immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combination is not “superior” to any other. Perhaps more importantly is developing an understanding of the overlapping toxicity profiles of checkpoint inhibitors and TKIs. Again, this trial results are consistent with prior studies in terms of the adverse event profile which were not trivial, and almost all patients (99%) experienced AEs. It is important for oncologists to understand the management of the toxicities with these combinations and dose reductions as appropriate. It is worth noting that 19% of patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib received glucocorticoids for management of immune-related AEs.

While long-term follow-up data will be needed to further understand the durability of response to this combination, nivolumab-cabozantinib represents an exciting new option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. As we continue to see improvement in outcomes in clear cell histology, further work must focus on optimization of therapy in non-clear cell RCC as this is a population that is not represented in these data sets. Furthermore, future efforts should begin to explore triplet combinations and biomarker driven patient selection for upfront therapy in ordercontinue to improve outcomes in patients with advanced RCC.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib adds to the growing list of highly active checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations for first-line treatment of advanced RCC. With significant higher response rates, improved outcomes, and improvement in the quality of life, this combination will add another standard treatment option for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with sunitinib monotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of 2 treatment arms:

• Arm A: Nivolumab intravenously 240 mg every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib orally 40 mg once daily.
• Arm B: Sunitinib orally 50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy (6-week cycle).

Randomization was stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic risk score (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk). Treatment was continued until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxic side effects with a maximum of 2-year duration of Nivolumab therapy.

Settings and participants. Adults with previously untreated advanced RCC with a clear cell component were eligible for enrollment. Subjects were excluded if they had active central nervous system metastases or active autoimmune disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome of this study was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, safety, and PFS as assessed by investigators. All subgroup analyses were prespecified. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, including all patients who underwent randomization.

Main results. A total of 651 patients underwent randomization: 323 to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, and 328 to the sunitinib group. Baseline demographics were balanced. The median follow-up period for overall survival (OS) was 18.1 months. The primary reason for treatment discontinuation in any group was disease progression. PFS as indicated by an independent review committee was significantly longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (median 16.6 months vs 8.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, P < .001). The median OS was not reached for any group. Overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (HR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.89; P = .001). The objective response rate was 55.7% with the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .001). The complete response rate was 8% in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to 4.6% in the sunitinib group. The median time to response was 2.8 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 4.2 months in the sunitinib group, while the median duration of response was 20.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively.

Nearly all patients (about 99% in each group) had an adverse event (AE). Hypertension was the most common side effect, with grade 3 or higher seen in 12.5% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group and 13.1% in the sunitinib group. Other grade 3 or higher side effects occurring in at least 10% of patients in any group were hyponatremia, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and fatigue. AEs of any cause leading to discontinuation of the therapy occurred in 19.7% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group vs 16.9% of the sunitinib group. One death was considered to be treatment-related (small intestinal perforation) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 2 treatment-related deaths with sunitinib (pneumonia and respiratory distress). In the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, 57% of the patients had a dose reduction of cabozantinib and 52% had a reduction in sunitinib dosage.

Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptoms Index, patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group reported better health-related quality of life and less disease-related symptoms compared to the sunitinib group.

Commentary

The treatment landscape for frontline therapy for patients with advanced RCC has rapidly expanded over the last several years and has revolutionized cancer care. Ushered in by the results from the CheckMate 214 study highlighting the efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab in intermediate and poor risk patients, several subsequent trials have demonstrated improved outcomes with combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). To date, data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib), Javelin Renal 101 (avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib) and the CLEAR trial (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs levatinib plus everolimus vs sunitinib) have demonstrated superiority of immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations over sunitinb in the first-line setting.^1-5

The current phase 3, CheckMate 9ER trial adds yet another dynamic option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. While cross-trial comparisons are fraught with important caveats, the median PFS of almost 16.6 months and complete response rate of 8% the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compares favorably with other combinations. Data from the CLEAR study with the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab showed a complete response rate approaching 16%. Importantly, the current study highlights improved quality of life with the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab compared to sunitinib alone adding to the efficacy and benefits of this combination treatment.

The selection of first line therapy for patients with advanced RCC should be always guided by individual patient characteristics, and any single immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combination is not “superior” to any other. Perhaps more importantly is developing an understanding of the overlapping toxicity profiles of checkpoint inhibitors and TKIs. Again, this trial results are consistent with prior studies in terms of the adverse event profile which were not trivial, and almost all patients (99%) experienced AEs. It is important for oncologists to understand the management of the toxicities with these combinations and dose reductions as appropriate. It is worth noting that 19% of patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib received glucocorticoids for management of immune-related AEs.

While long-term follow-up data will be needed to further understand the durability of response to this combination, nivolumab-cabozantinib represents an exciting new option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. As we continue to see improvement in outcomes in clear cell histology, further work must focus on optimization of therapy in non-clear cell RCC as this is a population that is not represented in these data sets. Furthermore, future efforts should begin to explore triplet combinations and biomarker driven patient selection for upfront therapy in ordercontinue to improve outcomes in patients with advanced RCC.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib adds to the growing list of highly active checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations for first-line treatment of advanced RCC. With significant higher response rates, improved outcomes, and improvement in the quality of life, this combination will add another standard treatment option for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC.

Study Overview

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with sunitinib monotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Design. Multicenter, international, open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial.

Intervention. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of 2 treatment arms:

• Arm A: Nivolumab intravenously 240 mg every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib orally 40 mg once daily.
• Arm B: Sunitinib orally 50 mg daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy (6-week cycle).

Randomization was stratified by the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium prognostic risk score (low-, intermediate-, and high-risk). Treatment was continued until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxic side effects with a maximum of 2-year duration of Nivolumab therapy.

Settings and participants. Adults with previously untreated advanced RCC with a clear cell component were eligible for enrollment. Subjects were excluded if they had active central nervous system metastases or active autoimmune disease.

Main outcome measures. The primary outcome of this study was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate, safety, and PFS as assessed by investigators. All subgroup analyses were prespecified. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, including all patients who underwent randomization.

Main results. A total of 651 patients underwent randomization: 323 to the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, and 328 to the sunitinib group. Baseline demographics were balanced. The median follow-up period for overall survival (OS) was 18.1 months. The primary reason for treatment discontinuation in any group was disease progression. PFS as indicated by an independent review committee was significantly longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (median 16.6 months vs 8.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, P < .001). The median OS was not reached for any group. Overall survival was longer in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to the sunitinib group (HR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.89; P = .001). The objective response rate was 55.7% with the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group versus 27.1% with sunitinib (P < .001). The complete response rate was 8% in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compared to 4.6% in the sunitinib group. The median time to response was 2.8 months with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 4.2 months in the sunitinib group, while the median duration of response was 20.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively.

Nearly all patients (about 99% in each group) had an adverse event (AE). Hypertension was the most common side effect, with grade 3 or higher seen in 12.5% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group and 13.1% in the sunitinib group. Other grade 3 or higher side effects occurring in at least 10% of patients in any group were hyponatremia, diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and fatigue. AEs of any cause leading to discontinuation of the therapy occurred in 19.7% in the nivolumab plus cabzantinib group vs 16.9% of the sunitinib group. One death was considered to be treatment-related (small intestinal perforation) in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group vs 2 treatment-related deaths with sunitinib (pneumonia and respiratory distress). In the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group, 57% of the patients had a dose reduction of cabozantinib and 52% had a reduction in sunitinib dosage.

Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptoms Index, patients in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group reported better health-related quality of life and less disease-related symptoms compared to the sunitinib group.

Commentary

The treatment landscape for frontline therapy for patients with advanced RCC has rapidly expanded over the last several years and has revolutionized cancer care. Ushered in by the results from the CheckMate 214 study highlighting the efficacy of dual checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab and ipilimumab in intermediate and poor risk patients, several subsequent trials have demonstrated improved outcomes with combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI). To date, data from Keynote-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib), Javelin Renal 101 (avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib) and the CLEAR trial (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab vs levatinib plus everolimus vs sunitinib) have demonstrated superiority of immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations over sunitinb in the first-line setting.^1-5

The current phase 3, CheckMate 9ER trial adds yet another dynamic option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. While cross-trial comparisons are fraught with important caveats, the median PFS of almost 16.6 months and complete response rate of 8% the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group compares favorably with other combinations. Data from the CLEAR study with the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab showed a complete response rate approaching 16%. Importantly, the current study highlights improved quality of life with the combination of cabozantinib and nivolumab compared to sunitinib alone adding to the efficacy and benefits of this combination treatment.

The selection of first line therapy for patients with advanced RCC should be always guided by individual patient characteristics, and any single immune checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combination is not “superior” to any other. Perhaps more importantly is developing an understanding of the overlapping toxicity profiles of checkpoint inhibitors and TKIs. Again, this trial results are consistent with prior studies in terms of the adverse event profile which were not trivial, and almost all patients (99%) experienced AEs. It is important for oncologists to understand the management of the toxicities with these combinations and dose reductions as appropriate. It is worth noting that 19% of patients with nivolumab plus cabozantinib received glucocorticoids for management of immune-related AEs.

While long-term follow-up data will be needed to further understand the durability of response to this combination, nivolumab-cabozantinib represents an exciting new option for patients with advanced clear cell RCC. As we continue to see improvement in outcomes in clear cell histology, further work must focus on optimization of therapy in non-clear cell RCC as this is a population that is not represented in these data sets. Furthermore, future efforts should begin to explore triplet combinations and biomarker driven patient selection for upfront therapy in ordercontinue to improve outcomes in patients with advanced RCC.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The combination of nivolumab plus cabozantinib adds to the growing list of highly active checkpoint inhibitor/TKI combinations for first-line treatment of advanced RCC. With significant higher response rates, improved outcomes, and improvement in the quality of life, this combination will add another standard treatment option for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC.

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

mzoler@mdedge.com

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

mzoler@mdedge.com

U.S. primary care physicians are not properly checking patients with type 2 diabetes for chronic kidney disease (CKD) nearly as often as they should, meaning many of these patients miss getting a timely diagnosis.

Inadequate measurement of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) is the issue.

Review of data from more than half a million U.S. primary care patients with type 2 diabetes seen at any of 1,164 practice sites run by any of 24 health care organizations during 2016-2019 showed that barely more than half, 52%, had both their uACR and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) checked annually as recommended by several U.S. medical societies, and just 73% had both values checked during a 3-year period, Nikita Stempniewicz, MSc, and associates reported in Diabetes Care.

More detailed data showed that measurement of eGFR was reasonably robust, measured at a 90% rate annually and in 97% of patients at least once every 3 years. But recording uACR values lagged, with a 53% annual rate and a 74% rate of measurement at least once every 3 years, reported Mr. Stempniewicz, director of research and analytics for the American Medical Group Association, a trade association based in Alexandria, Va. The 24 health care organizations that supplied the study’s data are all members of this association.

Prevailing recommendations from various medical societies call for annual monitoring of urinary albumin in patients with type 2 diabetes and specify the uACR, such as in the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the American Diabetes Association, as well as in recommendations promoted by the National Kidney Foundation.
 

Missing half the CKD patients with eGFR only

“Half the patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have elevated albuminuria without decreased eGFR and would not be detected with eGFR testing alone,” Mr. Stempniewicz noted in an interview.

“Many patients who present for nephrology care are incompletely assessed with only low eGFR but no urine testing. Missing albuminuria testing and uACR values means patients with high levels of albuminuria but normal kidney function go undetected and thus are not able to benefit from evidenced-based interventions, including nephrology services,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist, chief medical officer for the National Kidney Foundation, and a coauthor of the report.

Not testing patients with type 2 diabetes regularly for their uACR “is a missed opportunity to identify the highest-risk patients and treat them,” added Josef Coresh, MD, PhD, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and senior author on the study. Measurement of albuminuria is especially important for these patients because medications from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor class have been proven to slow progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes, but these drugs are expensive, and in some cases have labeling that specifies the presence of albuminuria.

“I have no doubt that improving albuminuria testing is a critical step to identify patients with diabetes at highest risk who should get the best treatment possible, including SGLT2 inhibitors,” Dr. Coresh said in an interview.

The new report is not the first to document inadequate assessment of albuminuria and uACR among primary care physicians (PCPs), but it came from the largest reported U.S. study to date. “eGFR is commonly collected in a routine laboratory blood panel, but collecting urine requires additional work flow,” noted Cara B. Litvin, MD, a general internal medicine researcher at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who has tested interventions aimed at boosting CKD assessment by PCPs and was not involved in the new study.

“There have also been conflicting guidelines,” such as a “now-inactive guideline from the American College of Physicians that recommended against routine urine albumin screening in patients with diabetes and already on treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker,” she said.
 

New renal drugs change the stakes

The availability of newer drugs for slowing CKD progression such as the SGLT2 inhibitors will help trigger greater support for routine albuminuria testing, Dr. Litvin predicted in an interview. “Now that we have more medications that can reduce albuminuria and improve outcomes, I see screening for albuminuria increasing.” Finerenone (Kerendia) is another new agent from a new class that recently received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Other drivers of increased uACR testing she expects include revised clinical practice guidelines, and new quality measures of clinical care.

“Undertesting of albuminuria means that [nephrologists] have incomplete data to detect and completely risk stratify the CKD population. That in turn results in a reduced ability to match population health interventions to the severity of the condition or the risk stratification based on eGFR and uACR,” Dr. Vassalotti said in an interview.

“We are missing opportunities to prevent or delay kidney failure and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death in these patients, particularly now that we have a number of medications that offer kidney and cardiovascular protection such as SGLT2 inhibitors,” he added. “Leaders in nephrology are beginning to understand the consequences of undertesting, and are working to innovate to improve risk stratification, CKD detection, and apply interventions to give Americans living with CKD better outcomes.”

Strategies proven to boost albuminuria testing

Mr. Stempniewicz and coauthors cited in their report potential strategies for improving albuminuria testing, including benchmarking to identify best-performing sites for albumin testing within a health system and encouraging replication of identified best practices at lower-performing sites, and implementation of clinical-decision support tools in the EHR such as pop-up test reminders.

These were among the tools tested in two studies led by Dr. Litvin. One study, with results reported in 2016, involved 12 small U.S. primary care practices with a total of more than 30,000 patients and compared performance in a series of clinical quality measures at baseline with performance after 2 years of receiving various interventions designed to boost awareness for albuminuria testing.

The second study, with findings reported in 2019, involved 21 U.S. primary care practices that collectively cared for more than 100,000 patients and randomized the practices to either undergo interventions aimed at boosting testing awareness or to serve as controls.

Results from both studies showed significant and substantial increases in serial testing for albuminuria in patients with diabetes or hypertension when practices received the interventions.

“We showed that [using a] clinical-decision support tool, along with standing orders to automatically collect urine specimens, dramatically increased screening for urinary albumin in primary care practices,” Dr. Litvin said. “However, perhaps because of conflicting guidelines and clinical inertia there hasn’t been a major impetus for primary care practices in general to improve screening.” She hopes that will quickly change.

“As we have shown, adoption of EHR-based reminders along with standing orders can very quickly improve screening for albuminuria in primary care.”

Variation in testing rates among sites ‘tremendous’

One finding of the new study gives Mr. Stempniewicz hope for greater future testing: The large variance that the researchers saw in albuminuria testing rates within individual health systems.

“The paper shows that higher rates of testing are completely achievable within each system. Some clinics do very well, and the other units can learn from these local successes,” he said. At least half the organizations in the study had individual sites that fell into the top 10% for testing rates across all the greater than 1,000 sites included, and those same organizations also had at least one site that fell into the bottom 10% for testing.

“The variation is tremendous, and highlights an opportunity for improvement,” declared Mr. Stempniewicz.

“For routine testing, you need systems that help people. Clinicians shouldn’t have to think about doing routine testing. It should just happen,” said Dr. Coresh.

The study was funded in part by Janssen. Mr. Stempniewicz and Dr. Litvin had no disclosures. Dr. Coresh is an adviser to Healthy.io, a company that markets a home albuminuria testing kit to patients. Dr. Vassalotti has received personal fees from Renalytix.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Background: Postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) is known to have a mild, often self-limiting, clinical course. Despite this, preventative measures are advised by international guidelines in high-risk patients.

Dr. Moulder is assistant professor of medicine, section of hospital medicine, at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

Patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were in the DAPA-CKD trial had cardiorenal benefits from dapagliflozin that were similar to those of patients in the overall trial, with no added safety signal.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

DAPA-CKD (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease) was a landmark study of more than 4,000 patients with CKD, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 25-75 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria with/without type 2 diabetes.

The primary results showed that patients who received the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin for a median of 2.4 years were significantly less likely to have worsening kidney disease or die from all causes than were patients who received placebo.

“This prespecified subanalysis of people with an eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² [stage 4 CKD] in the DAPA-CKD study shows first, that in this very vulnerable population, use of the SGLT2 inhibitor is safe,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, PhD.

Furthermore, there was no signal whatsoever of more adverse events and even a trend to fewer events, she said in an email to this news organization.

The analysis also showed that “although now in small numbers (around 300 each in the treated group vs. placebo group), there is no suggestion that the protective effect of dapagliflozin on the renal and cardiovascular front would not happen in this group” with advanced CKD. The efficacy findings just missed statistical significance, noted Dr. Mathieu, of Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium, who was not involved in the study.

Although dapagliflozin is now approved for treating patients with CKD who are at risk of kidney disease progression (on the basis of the DAPA-CKD results), guidelines have not yet been updated to reflect this, lead investigator Glenn M. Chertow, MD, MPH, of Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization in an email.

“For clinicians,” Dr. Mathieu said, “this is now the absolute reassurance that we do not have to stop an SGLT2 inhibitor in people with eGFR < 30 mL/min for safety reasons and that we should maintain them at these values for renal and cardiovascular protection!

“I absolutely hope labels will change soon to reflect these observations (and indeed movement on that front is happening),” she continued.

“The American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes already advocated keeping these agents until eGFR 30 mL/min (on the basis of evidence in 2019),” Dr. Mathieu added, “but this study will probably push the statements even further.”

“Of note,” she pointed out, “at these low eGFRs, the glucose-lowering potential of the SGLT2 inhibitor is negligible.”
 

Dapagliflozin risks and benefits in advanced CKD

Based on the DAPA-CKD study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine Oct. 8, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration expanded the indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) in April of 2021.

However, relatively little is known about the safety and efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with advanced CKD, who are particularly vulnerable to cardiovascular events and progressive kidney failure, Dr. Chertow and colleagues wrote.

The DAPA-CKD trial randomized 4,304 patients with CKD 1:1 to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo, including 624 patients (14%) who had eGFR < 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² and albuminuria at baseline.

Patients in the subgroup with advanced CKD had a mean age of 62 years, and 37% were female. About two-thirds had type 2 diabetes and about one-third had cardiovascular disease.

A total of 293 patients received dapagliflozin and 331 patients received placebo.

During a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo had a lower risk of the primary efficacy outcome – a composite of a 50% or greater sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from cardiovascular or renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.02).

In secondary efficacy outcomes, patients who received dapagliflozin as opposed to placebo also had a lower risk of the following:

• A renal composite outcome – a ≥ 50% sustained decline in eGFR, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.02).
• A cardiovascular composite outcome comprising cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.45-1.53).
• All-cause mortality (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.21).

The eGFR slope declined by 2.15 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year and by 3.38 mL/min per 1.73 m² per year in the dapagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (P = .005).

“The trial was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference in the primary and key secondary endpoints in modest-sized subgroups,” the researchers noted.

The researchers limited their safety analysis to serious adverse events or symptoms of volume depletion, kidney-related events, major hypoglycemia, bone fractures, amputations, and potential diabetic ketoacidosis.

There was no evidence of increased risk of these adverse events in patients who received dapagliflozin.

The subanalysis of the DAPA-CKD trial was published July 16 in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow has received fees from AstraZeneca for the DAPA-CKD trial steering committee. The disclosures of the other authors are listed in the article. Dr. Mathieu has served on the advisory panel/speakers bureau for AstraZeneca. Dr. Chertow and Dr. Mathieu also have financial relationships with many other pharmaceutical companies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone (Kerendia), the first agent from a new class of nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), on July 9 for treating patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes.

Janani Rangaswami, MD, a nephrologist not involved with finerenone’s development, hailed the action as a “welcome addition to therapies in the cardiorenal space.”

She also highlighted that until more evidence accumulates, finerenone will take a back seat to two more established renal-protective drug classes for patients with type 2 diabetes, the renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), and the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

RASIs, which include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, remain first-line treatments for slowing the progression of CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes. The efficacy and safety of these agents are well-established. The trial that led to the FDA’s decision to approve finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD, compared it against placebo in more than 5,700 patients with type 2 diabetes who were all already taking a maximum-tolerated dose of an RASI.
 

Scant data on combining finerenone with an SGLT2 inhibitor

Two agents in the SGLT2 inhibitor class, approved initially for type 2 diabetes, received additional FDA approvals for slowing kidney disease: Canagliflozin (Invokana), which was approved in September 2019 on the basis of the CREDENCE trial, and dapagliflozin (Forxiga/Farxiga), which was approved in April 2021 on the basis of DAPA-CKD. Nephrologists now speak of this drug class as “practice changing.”

When FIDELIO-DKD enrolled patients from September 2015 to June 2018, it was still early days for use of SGLT2 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes; hence, fewer than 5% of enrolled patients received an SGLT2 inhibitor, making it impossible to say how well finerenone works when taken along with one of these drugs.

“The big question that persists is the incremental benefit [from finerenone] on top of an SGLT2 inhibitor,” commented Dr. Rangaswami, director of the cardiorenal program at George Washington University, Washington, and chair-elect of the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease of the American Heart Association.

“It is hard to extrapolate incremental benefit from existing finerenone trial data given the low background use of SGLT2 inhibitors [in FIDELIO-DKD],” she said in an interview.

George Bakris, MD, lead investigator for FIDELIO-DKD, agrees.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors are a ‘must’ for CKD

An SGLT2 inhibitor “must be used, period,” for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. “The evidence is very strong,” said Dr. Bakris, speaking in June 2021 during a session of the virtual annual Congress of the European Renal Association and European Dialysis and Transplant Association.

Because of inadequate evidence on how finerenone works when administered in addition to an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the time being, the combination must be considered investigational, he added.

Study results “need to show that combination therapy [with an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone] is better” than an SGLT2 inhibitor alone, said Dr. Bakris, professor of medicine and director of the Comprehensive Hypertension Center of the University of Chicago.

During his June talk, Dr. Bakris predicted that by 2023, enough data will exist from patients treated with both an SGLT2 inhibitor and finerenone to allow an evidence-based approach to combination treatment.

Finerenone’s approval makes it an immediate choice for patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD secondary to polycystic kidney disease, a group who are not candidates for an SGLT2 inhibitor, said Dr. Rangaswami.

But “if a patient is eligible for an SGLT2 inhibitor, I would not stop that in favor of starting finerenone” on the basis of current knowledge, she noted.
 

‘Not your mother’s spironolactone’

Although finerenone is classified an MRA, the class that also includes the steroidal agents spironolactone and eplerenone, the nonsteroidal structure of finerenone means “it has nothing to do with spironolactone. It’s a different molecule with different chemistry,” Dr. Bakris said in his June talk.

Although the risk for hyperkalemia has been a limiting factor and a deterrent to routine use of steroidal MRAs for preventing progression of CKD, hyperkalemia is much less of a problem with finerenone.

Main results from FIDELIO-DKD, published in late 2020, showed that the percentage of patients receiving finerenone who permanently stopped taking the drug because of hyperkalemia was 2.3%, higher than the 0.9% rate among patients in the trial who received placebo but about a third of the rate of patients treated with spironolactone in a historical cohort.

“You need to pay attention” to the potential development of hyperkalemia in patients taking finerenone, “but it is not a major issue,” Dr. Bakris said. “Finerenone is not your mother’s spironolactone,” he declared.

FIDELIO-DKD’s primary outcome, a combination of several adverse renal events, showed that treatment with finerenone cut this endpoint by a significant 18% compared with placebo. The study’s main secondary endpoint showed that finerenone cut the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease events by a significant 14% compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar in the finerenone and placebo arms.
 

Finerenone also shows promise for reducing CVD events

Bayer, the company that developed and will market finerenone, announced in May 2021 topline results from a companion trial, FIGARO-DKD. That trial also enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD, but a primary endpoint of that trial combined the rates of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease events. The results from this trial showed a significant difference in favor of finerenone compared with placebo.

“Given the common pathways that progression of CKD and cardiovascular disease share with respect to [moderating] inflammation and [slowing development of] fibrosis, it is not surprising that a signal for benefit was seen at the different ends of the cardiorenal spectrum,” Dr. Rangaswami said.

FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Bakris has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Bayer and from numerous other companies. Dr. Rangaswami has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Fever is a common symptom in patients presenting to the ED. In patients with hemodialysis-dependent ESRD, the literature on febrile response during infection is scarce. In this study, authors compared ED triage temperatures of S. aureus bacteremic patients with and without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD.

Study design: Paired, retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary care referral center.

Synopsis: A total of 74 patients with methicillin-resistant or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia were included in this study (37 patients with and 37 patients without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD). Upon triage, 54% (95% confidence interval, 38%-70%) and 82% (95% CI, 65%-91%) of hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis patients did not have a detectable fever (less than 100.4° F), respectively. The estimated mean ED triage temperatures were 100.5° F in the hemodialysis-dependent patients and 99.0° F in the non–hemodialysis-dependent patients (P < .001). The authors note the significant lack of fevers may be the result of insensitive methods for measuring body temperature, such as peripheral thermometers.

Bottom line: In this small retrospective cohort study, these data suggest a high incidence of afebrile bacteremia in patients with ESRD, especially those patients not dialysis dependent. This may lead to delays in obtaining blood cultures and initiating antibiotics. However, given the study design, the authors were unable to conclude a causal relationship between ESRD and febrile response.

Citation: Weatherall SL et al. Do bacteremic patients with end-stage renal disease have a fever when presenting to the emergency department? A paired, retrospective cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20:2.

Dr. Schmit is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Fever is a common symptom in patients presenting to the ED. In patients with hemodialysis-dependent ESRD, the literature on febrile response during infection is scarce. In this study, authors compared ED triage temperatures of S. aureus bacteremic patients with and without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD.

Study design: Paired, retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary care referral center.

Synopsis: A total of 74 patients with methicillin-resistant or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia were included in this study (37 patients with and 37 patients without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD). Upon triage, 54% (95% confidence interval, 38%-70%) and 82% (95% CI, 65%-91%) of hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis patients did not have a detectable fever (less than 100.4° F), respectively. The estimated mean ED triage temperatures were 100.5° F in the hemodialysis-dependent patients and 99.0° F in the non–hemodialysis-dependent patients (P < .001). The authors note the significant lack of fevers may be the result of insensitive methods for measuring body temperature, such as peripheral thermometers.

Bottom line: In this small retrospective cohort study, these data suggest a high incidence of afebrile bacteremia in patients with ESRD, especially those patients not dialysis dependent. This may lead to delays in obtaining blood cultures and initiating antibiotics. However, given the study design, the authors were unable to conclude a causal relationship between ESRD and febrile response.

Citation: Weatherall SL et al. Do bacteremic patients with end-stage renal disease have a fever when presenting to the emergency department? A paired, retrospective cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20:2.

Dr. Schmit is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: Fever is a common symptom in patients presenting to the ED. In patients with hemodialysis-dependent ESRD, the literature on febrile response during infection is scarce. In this study, authors compared ED triage temperatures of S. aureus bacteremic patients with and without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD.

Study design: Paired, retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary care referral center.

Synopsis: A total of 74 patients with methicillin-resistant or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus bacteremia were included in this study (37 patients with and 37 patients without hemodialysis-dependent ESRD). Upon triage, 54% (95% confidence interval, 38%-70%) and 82% (95% CI, 65%-91%) of hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis patients did not have a detectable fever (less than 100.4° F), respectively. The estimated mean ED triage temperatures were 100.5° F in the hemodialysis-dependent patients and 99.0° F in the non–hemodialysis-dependent patients (P < .001). The authors note the significant lack of fevers may be the result of insensitive methods for measuring body temperature, such as peripheral thermometers.

Bottom line: In this small retrospective cohort study, these data suggest a high incidence of afebrile bacteremia in patients with ESRD, especially those patients not dialysis dependent. This may lead to delays in obtaining blood cultures and initiating antibiotics. However, given the study design, the authors were unable to conclude a causal relationship between ESRD and febrile response.

Citation: Weatherall SL et al. Do bacteremic patients with end-stage renal disease have a fever when presenting to the emergency department? A paired, retrospective cohort study. BMC Emerg Med. 2020;20:2.

Dr. Schmit is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.