Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.
Natale, Patrizia; Mooi, Pamela Kl; Palmer, Suetonia C; Cross, Nicholas B; Cooper, Tess E; Webster, Angela C; Masson, Philip; Craig, Jonathan C; Strippoli, Giovanni Fm.
Affiliation
  • Natale P; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Mooi PK; Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
  • Palmer SC; Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DIMEPRE-J), University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy.
  • Cross NB; Department of Nephrology, Christchurch Hospital, Te Whatu Ora Waitaha Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Cooper TE; Department of Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Webster AC; Department of Nephrology, Christchurch Hospital, Te Whatu Ora Waitaha Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Masson P; New Zealand Clinical Research, 3/264 Antigua St, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Craig JC; NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  • Strippoli GF; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 7: CD003598, 2024 07 31.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39082471
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The comparative effects of specific blood pressure (BP) lowering treatments on patient-important outcomes following kidney transplantation are uncertain. Our 2009 Cochrane review found that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) improved graft function and prevented graft loss, while the evidence for other BP-lowering treatments was limited. This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the benefits and harms of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients. SEARCH

METHODS:

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 3 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating any BP-lowering agent in recipients of a functioning kidney transplant for at least two weeks were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND

ANALYSIS:

Two authors independently assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised using the random-effects model and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) processes. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, graft loss, and kidney function. MAIN

RESULTS:

Ninety-seven studies (8706 participants) were included. One study evaluated treatment in children. The overall risk of bias was unclear to high across all domains. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, CCBs probably reduce all-cause death (23 studies, 3327

participants:

RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) and graft loss (24 studies, 3577

participants:

RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may make little or no difference to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (11 studies, 2250

participants:

MD 1.89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.48; I2 = 48%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (13 studies, 906

participants:

RR 10.8, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may reduce systolic BP (SBP) (3 studies, 329

participants:

MD -5.83 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.42; I2 = 13%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (DBP) (3 studies, 329

participants:

MD -3.98 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.98 to -1.99; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). CCBs have uncertain effects on proteinuria. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (7 studies, 702

participants:

RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), graft loss (6 studies, 718

participants:

RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGFR (4 studies, 509

participants:

MD -2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -7.66 to 2.73; I2 = 64%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (4 studies, 388

participants:

RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ACEi may reduce proteinuria (5 studies, 441

participants:

MD -0.33 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.01; I2 = 67%; low certainty evidence) but had uncertain effects on SBP and DBP. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (6 studies, 1041

participants:

RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGRF (5 studies, 300

participants:

MD -1.91 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -6.20 to 2.38; I2 = 57%; low certainty evidence), and acute rejection (4 studies, 323

participants:

RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ARBs may reduce graft loss (6 studies, 892

participants:

RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), SBP (10 studies, 1239

participants:

MD -3.73 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.02 to -0.44; I2 = 63%; moderate certainty evidence) and DBP (9 studies, 1086

participants:

MD -2.75 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.18; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty evidence), but has uncertain effects on proteinuria. The effects of CCBs, ACEi or ARB compared to placebo or standard care alone on cardiovascular outcomes (including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke) or other adverse events were uncertain. The comparative effects of ACEi plus ARB dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone were rarely evaluated. Head-to-head comparisons of ACEi, ARB or thiazide versus CCB, ACEi versus ARB, CCB or ACEi versus alpha- or beta-blockers, or ACEi plus CCB dual therapy versus ACEi or CCB monotherapy were scarce. No studies reported outcome data for cancer or life participation. AUTHORS'

CONCLUSIONS:

For kidney transplant recipients, the use of CCB therapy to reduce BP probably reduces death and graft loss compared to placebo or standard care alone, while ARB may reduce graft loss. The effects of ACEi and ARB compared to placebo or standard care on other patient-centred outcomes were uncertain. The effects of dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone and the comparative effects of different treatments were uncertain.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Calcium Channel Blockers / Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Kidney Transplantation / Hypertension / Antihypertensive Agents Limits: Adult / Humans Language: En Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia Country of publication: United kingdom

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Calcium Channel Blockers / Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Kidney Transplantation / Hypertension / Antihypertensive Agents Limits: Adult / Humans Language: En Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Journal subject: PESQUISA EM SERVICOS DE SAUDE Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Australia Country of publication: United kingdom