Icodextrin Versus Glucose Solutions for the Once-Daily Long Dwell in Peritoneal Dialysis: An Enriched Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of icodextrin versus glucose-only peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimens is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare once-daily long-dwell icodextrin versus glucose among patients with kidney failure undergoing PD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enriched with unpublished data from investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored studies. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Individuals with kidney failure receiving regular PD treatment enrolled in clinical trials of dialysate composition. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ichushi Web, 10 Chinese databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and citation lists from inception to November 2018. Further data were obtained from principal investigators and industry clinical study reports. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data using a prespecified extraction instrument. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Qualitative synthesis of demographics, measurement scales, and outcomes. Quantitative synthesis with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), Peto odds ratios (ORs), or (standardized) mean differences (MDs). Risk of bias of included studies at the outcome level was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. RESULTS: 19 RCTs that enrolled 1,693 participants were meta-analyzed. Ultrafiltration was improved with icodextrin (medium-term MD, 208.92 [95% CI, 99.69-318.14] mL/24h; high certainty of evidence), reflected also by fewer episodes of fluid overload (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.78]; high certainty). Icodextrin-containing PD probably decreased mortality risk compared to glucose-only PD (Peto OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24-1.00]; moderate certainty). Despite evidence of lower peritoneal glucose absorption with icodextrin-containing PD (medium-term MD, -40.84 [95% CI, -48.09 to-33.59] g/long dwell; high certainty), this did not directly translate to changes in fasting plasma glucose (-0.50 [95% CI, -1.19 to 0.18] mmol/L; low certainty) and hemoglobin A1c levels (-0.14% [95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%]; high certainty). Safety outcomes and residual kidney function were similar in both groups; health-related quality-of-life and pain scores were inconclusive. LIMITATIONS: Trial quality was variable. The follow-up period was heterogeneous, with a paucity of assessments over the long term. Mortality results are based on just 32 events and were not corroborated using time-to-event analysis of individual patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Icodextrin for once-daily long-dwell PD has clinical benefit for some patients, including those not meeting ultrafiltration targets and at risk for fluid overload. Future research into patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness associated with icodextrin is needed.

The role of icodextrin in peritoneal dialysis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses have found several advantages of icodextrin compared with glucose in the application of peritoneal dialysis (PD), such as an improvement of peritoneal ultrafiltration during the long dwell and a reduction in episodes of uncontrolled fluid overload. However, the effect of icodextrin on patient-relevant outcomes remains unclear. This review aims to evaluate the benefits and harms of icodextrin in comparison with conventional glucose PD solution in patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving PD. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of icodextrin comparing with conventional glucose solution in patients with end-stage kidney disease who received PD will be deemed eligible. We will conduct systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Ichushi-Web, Chinese and Japanese databases, and in clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP), EU Clinical Trials Register, Japan Registries Network (JPRN), China's Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR)). Furthermore, we will check conference proceedings and search references from relevant studies manually. Relevant pharmaceutical companies, authors, and experts will be contacted in an effort to identify further studies. We will not apply any limitations regarding language, publication status, and publication date when searching for eligible studies. The selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment will be carried out by two independent reviewers. Data synthesis will be performed using RevMan 5 software with either a fixed effects model or random-effects model, depending on the presence of heterogeneity. For the assessment of statistical heterogeneity, I2 will be calculated. Sources of clinical heterogeneity will be evaluated through subgroup analyses. If there are ten or more studies included in the meta-analysis, we will investigate the publication bias using funnel plots and Egger's test. The quality of the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. DISCUSSION: We assume that our systematic review will be more comprehensive compared to those published previously due to contacting the relevant pharmaceutical companies and a systematic search of published and unpublished non-English studies from China, Taiwan, and Japan. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018096951.