Background: Early reports indicate that AKI is common during COVID-19 infection. Different mortality rates of AKI due to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported, based on the degree of organic dysfunction and varying from public to private hospitals. However, there is a lack of data about AKI among critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a multicenter cohort study of 424 critically ill adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and AKI, both associated with SARS-CoV-2, admitted to six public ICUs in Brazil. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors for AKI severity and in-hospital mortality. Results: The average age was 66.42 ± 13.79 years, 90.3% were on mechanical ventilation (MV), 76.6% were at KDIGO stage 3, and 79% underwent hemodialysis. The overall mortality was 90.1%. We found a higher frequency of dialysis (82.7% versus 45.2%), MV (95% versus 47.6%), vasopressors (81.2% versus 35.7%) (p < 0.001) and severe AKI (79.3% versus 52.4%; p ¼ 0.002) in nonsurvivors. MV, vasopressors, dialysis, sepsis-associated AKI, and death (p < 0.001) were more frequent in KDIGO 3. Logistic regression for death demonstrated an association with MV (OR ¼ 8.44; CI 3.43-20.74) and vasopressors (OR ¼ 2.93; CI 1.28-6.71; p < 0.001). Severe AKI and dialysis need were not independent risk factors for death. MV (OR ¼ 2.60; CI 1.23-5.45) and vasopressors (OR ¼ 1.95; CI 1.12-3.99) were also independent risk factors for KDIGO 3 (p < 0.001). Conclusion:Critically ill patients with SARS and AKI due to COVID-19 had high mortality in this cohort. Mortality was largely determined by the need for mechanical ventilation and vasopressors rather than AKI severity.

Background and objective Thiazide diuretics are first-line drugs for the treatment of hypertension, but hypertension treatment guidelines have systematically discouraged their use in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). For the first time, a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis were performed to assess the effectiveness of thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics to treat hypertension in patients with stages 3b, 4, and 5 CKD. Design, setting, participants, & measurements A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis that included a literature search using the following databases were performed: MEDLINE through PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ISI – Web of Science (all databases). Prospective studies that evaluated the effectiveness of thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics in individuals with a GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 were included. Results Five clinical trials, totaling 214 participants, were included, and the mean GFR ranged from 13.0 ± 5.9 mL/min/1.73 m 2 to 26.8 ± 8.8 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . There was evidence of a reduction in mean blood pressure and in GFR, as well as in fractional sodium excretion and fractional chloride excretion. Conclusion Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics seem to maintain their effectiveness in lowering blood pressure in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. These findings should spur new prospective randomized trials and spark discussions, particularly about upcoming hypertension guidelines.

Objective: The values used to define white-coat and masked blood pressure (BP) effects are usually arbitrary. This study aimed at investigating the accuracy of various thresholds based on the differences (DBP) between office BP (OBP) and 24h-ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to identify white-coat (WCH) and masked (MH) hypertension, which are phenotypes assumed to carry adverse prognosis. Design and method: This cross-sectional study included 11,350 [Derivation cohort; 45% men, mean age = 55.1 ± 14.1 years, OBP = 132.1 ± 17.6/83.9 ± 12.5 mmHg, ABPM = 121.6 ± 11.4/76.1 ± 9.6 mmHg, 25% using antihypertensive medications (AH)] and 7,220 [Validation cohort; 46% men, mean age = 58.6 ± 15.1 years, OBP = 136.8 ± 18.7/87.6 ± 13.0 mmHg, ABPM = 125.5 ± 12.6/77.7 ± 10.3 mmHg; 32% using AH] unique individuals who underwent OBP and ABPM measurements. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and area under the curve (AUC) of 8 different ↗BP thresholds to detect WCH (↗systolicBP/↗diastolicBP = +28/+17, +20/+15, +20/+10, +16/+11, +15/+9, +14/+9 mmHg and ↗systolicBP = +13 and +10 mmHg) and eight different ↗BP thresholds to detect MH (↗systolicBP/↗diastolicBP = -14/-9, -5/-2, -3/-1, -1/-1, 0/0, +2/+2 mmHg and ↗systolicBP = -5 and -3 mmHg), built from formerly reported criteria in the literature. WCH was defined as OBP> = 140/90mmHg and ABPM < 130/80mmHg, and MH was defined as OBP < 140/90mmHg and ABPM> = 130/80mmHg. Results: The +20/+15 mmHg threshold showed the best AUC (0.804, 95%CI = 0.794 - 0.814) to detect WCH in the Derivation cohort, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 80.6%, 80.2%, 42.3%, and 95.8%, respectively. The +2/+2 mmHg threshold showed the highest AUC (0.741, 95%CI = 0.728 - 0.754) to detect MH, with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 78.9%, 69.3%, 22.0% and 96.8%, respectively. Both threshold values also had the best accuracy to detect WCH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.754 - 0.780) and MH (0.767, 95%CI = 0.750 - 0.784) in the Validation cohort. In secondary analyses, these thresholds had the best accuracy to detect WCH and MH in individuals using or not AH, and to detect individuals with higher and lower office-than-home BP stages, respectively, in both cohorts. Conclusions: The +20/+15 and +2/+2 mmHg ↗BP thresholds had the best accuracy to detect hypertensive patients with WCH and MH, respectively, and may be indicators of marked white-coat and masked BP effects.