Yoshio N Hall1, Glenn M Chertow. 1. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Univeristy of Washington, Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, a quarter have kidney transplants, and a tenth receive peritoneal dialysis. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses and osmotic agents for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, dextrose solutions, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high-membrane-flux haemodialysis, icodextrin, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low-membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, and standard-dose dialysis.
INTRODUCTION: End stage renal disease (ESRD) affects over 1500 people per million population in countries with a high prevalence, such as the USA and Japan. Approximately two thirds of people with ESRD receive haemodialysis, a quarter have kidney transplants, and a tenth receive peritoneal dialysis. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different doses and osmotic agents for peritoneal dialysis? What are the effects of different doses and membrane fluxes for haemodialysis? What are the effects of interventions aimed at preventing secondary complications? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to April 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). RESULTS: We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: cinacalcet, darbepoetin, dextrose solutions, erythropoietin, haemodialysis (standard-dose, increased-dose), high-membrane-flux haemodialysis, icodextrin, increased-dose peritoneal dialysis, low-membrane-flux haemodialysis, mupirocin, sevelamer, and standard-dose dialysis.
Authors: Paolo Raggi; Amy Boulay; Scott Chasan-Taber; Naseem Amin; Maureen Dillon; Steven K Burke; Glenn M Chertow Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-02-20 Impact factor: 24.094