Lesley A Inker1, Andrew S Levey2, Kruti Pandya2, Nicholas Stoycheff2, Aghogho Okparavero2, Tom Greene3. 1. Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: linker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether proteinuria is a valid surrogate end point for randomized trials in chronic kidney disease. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. SETTING & POPULATION: Individual patient data for 9,008 patients from 32 randomized trials evaluating 5 intervention types. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials of kidney disease progression until 2007 with measurements of proteinuria both at baseline and during the first year of follow-up, with at least 1 further year of follow-up for the clinical outcome. PREDICTOR: Early change in proteinuria. OUTCOMES: Doubling of serum creatinine level, end-stage renal disease, or death. RESULTS: Early decline in proteinuria was associated with lower risk of the clinical outcome (pooled HR, 0.74 per 50% reduction in proteinuria); this association was stronger at higher levels of baseline proteinuria. Pooled estimates for the proportion of treatment effect on the clinical outcome explained by early decline in proteinuria ranged from -7.0% (95%CI, -40.6% to 26.7%) to 43.9% (95%CI, 25.3% to 62.6%) across 5 intervention types. The direction of the pooled treatment effects on early change in proteinuria agreed with the direction of the treatment effect on the clinical outcome for all 5 intervention types, with the magnitudes of the pooled treatment effects on the 2 end points agreeing for 4 of the 5 intervention types. The pooled treatment effects on both end points were simultaneously stronger at higher levels of proteinuria. However, statistical power was insufficient to determine whether differences in treatment effects on the clinical outcome corresponded to differences in treatment effects on proteinuria between individual studies. LIMITATIONS: Limited variety of interventions tested and low statistical power for many chronic kidney disease clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide new evidence supporting the use of an early reduction in proteinuria as a surrogate end point, but do not provide sufficient evidence to establish its validity in all settings.
BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether proteinuria is a valid surrogate end point for randomized trials in chronic kidney disease. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. SETTING & POPULATION: Individual patient data for 9,008 patients from 32 randomized trials evaluating 5 intervention types. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials of kidney disease progression until 2007 with measurements of proteinuria both at baseline and during the first year of follow-up, with at least 1 further year of follow-up for the clinical outcome. PREDICTOR: Early change in proteinuria. OUTCOMES: Doubling of serum creatinine level, end-stage renal disease, or death. RESULTS: Early decline in proteinuria was associated with lower risk of the clinical outcome (pooled HR, 0.74 per 50% reduction in proteinuria); this association was stronger at higher levels of baseline proteinuria. Pooled estimates for the proportion of treatment effect on the clinical outcome explained by early decline in proteinuria ranged from -7.0% (95%CI, -40.6% to 26.7%) to 43.9% (95%CI, 25.3% to 62.6%) across 5 intervention types. The direction of the pooled treatment effects on early change in proteinuria agreed with the direction of the treatment effect on the clinical outcome for all 5 intervention types, with the magnitudes of the pooled treatment effects on the 2 end points agreeing for 4 of the 5 intervention types. The pooled treatment effects on both end points were simultaneously stronger at higher levels of proteinuria. However, statistical power was insufficient to determine whether differences in treatment effects on the clinical outcome corresponded to differences in treatment effects on proteinuria between individual studies. LIMITATIONS: Limited variety of interventions tested and low statistical power for many chronic kidney disease clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide new evidence supporting the use of an early reduction in proteinuria as a surrogate end point, but do not provide sufficient evidence to establish its validity in all settings.
Authors: Philip Kam-Tao Li; Chi Bon Leung; Kai Ming Chow; Yuk Lun Cheng; Samuel Ka-Shun Fung; Siu Ka Mak; Anthony Wing-Chung Tang; Teresa Yuk-Hwa Wong; Chun Yu Yung; Jonathan Chee-Unn Yung; Alex Wai-Yin Yu; Cheuk Chun Szeto Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: F Turnbull; B Neal; M Pfeffer; J Kostis; C Algert; M Woodward; J Chalmers; A Zanchetti; S MacMahon Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Juan Jesús Carrero; Morgan E Grams; Yingying Sang; Johan Ärnlöv; Alessandro Gasparini; Kunihiro Matsushita; Abdul R Qureshi; Marie Evans; Peter Barany; Bengt Lindholm; Shoshana H Ballew; Andrew S Levey; Ron T Gansevoort; Carl G Elinder; Josef Coresh Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2016-12-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Toshiaki Ohkuma; Min Jun; John Chalmers; Mark E Cooper; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Sophia Zoungas; Vlado Perkovic; Mark Woodward Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Josef Coresh; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Yingying Sang; Kunihiro Matsushita; Johan Arnlov; Brad C Astor; Corri Black; Nigel J Brunskill; Juan-Jesus Carrero; Harold I Feldman; Caroline S Fox; Lesley A Inker; Areef Ishani; Sadayoshi Ito; Simerjot Jassal; Tsuneo Konta; Kevan Polkinghorne; Solfrid Romundstad; Marit D Solbu; Nikita Stempniewicz; Benedicte Stengel; Marcello Tonelli; Mitsumasa Umesawa; Sushrut S Waikar; Chi-Pang Wen; Jack F M Wetzels; Mark Woodward; Morgan E Grams; Csaba P Kovesdy; Andrew S Levey; Ron T Gansevoort Journal: Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 32.069
Authors: Alex R Chang; Edgar R Miller; Cheryl A Anderson; Stephen P Juraschek; Melissa Moser; Karen White; Bobbie Henry; Caitlin Krekel; Susan Oh; Jeanne Charleston; Lawrence J Appel Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Sushrut S Waikar; Casey M Rebholz; Zihe Zheng; Shelley Hurwitz; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Harold I Feldman; Dawei Xie; Kathleen D Liu; Theodore E Mifflin; John H Eckfeldt; Paul L Kimmel; Ramachandran S Vasan; Joseph V Bonventre; Lesley A Inker; Josef Coresh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: William Herrington; Nicola Illingworth; Natalie Staplin; Aishwarya Kumar; Ben Storey; Renata Hrusecka; Parminder Judge; Maria Mahmood; Sarah Parish; Martin Landray; Richard Haynes; Colin Baigent; Michael Hill; Sarah Clark Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 8.237