Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for preventing acute kidney injury
Hiroki Nishiwaki,Yoshifusa Abe,Taihei Suzuki,Takeshi Hasegawa,William Mm Levack,Hisashi Noma,Erika Ota
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014820.pub2
2024-09-20
Abstract:Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is characterised by a rapid decline in kidney function and is caused by a variety of clinical conditions. The incidence of AKI in hospitalised adults is high. In animal studies, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) have been shown to act as a novel nephroprotective agent against ischaemic, toxic, and septic AKI by inhibiting apoptosis, promoting cell proliferation, and inducing antioxidant and anti-inflammatory responses. As a result, ESAs may reduce the incidence of AKI in humans. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on the efficacy and safety of ESAs, but no prior systematic reviews exist that comprehensively examine ESAs with respect to AKI prevention, although the effectiveness of these agents has been examined for a range of other diseases and clinical situations. Objectives: This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of ESAs for preventing AKI in the context of any health condition. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 30 August 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Selection criteria: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs (in which allocation to treatment was based on alternate assignment or order of medical records, admission dates, date of birth or other non-random methods) that compared ESAs with placebo or standard care in people at risk of AKI. Data collection and analysis: Three authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for included studies. We used random-effects model meta-analyses to perform quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I2 statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each main outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main results: A total of 20 studies (36 records, 5348 participants) were included. The number of participants ranged from 10 to 1302, and most studies were carried out in single centres (13/20). All the included studies compared ESAs to placebo or usual care. Many of the studies were judged to have unclear or high risk of reporting bias, but were at low risk for other types of bias. ESAs, when compared to control interventions, probably makes little or no difference to the risk of AKI (18 studies, 5314 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.10; I² = 19%; moderate-certainty evidence), or death (18 studies, 5263 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and may make little or no difference to the initiation of dialysis (14 studies, 2059 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.51; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Even with standardised measurement of AKI, the studies showed no difference in results between different routes of administration (subcutaneous or intravenous), background diseases (cardiac surgeries, children or neonates, other adults at risk of AKI), or duration or dose of ESA. ESAs may make little or no difference to the risk of thrombosis when compared to control interventions (8 studies, 3484 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24; I² = 0%). Similarly, ESAs may have little or no effect on kidney function measures and adverse events such as myocardial infarction, stroke or hypertension. However, this may be due to the low incidence of these adverse events. Authors' conclusions: In patients at risk of AKI, ESAs probably do not reduce the risk of AKI or death and may not reduce the need for starting dialysis. Similarly, there may be no differences in kidney function measures and adverse events such as thrombosis, myocardial infarction, stroke or hypertension. There are currently two ongoing studies that have either not been completed or published, and it is unclear whether they will change the results. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs to prevent AKI.