No abstract

BackgroundPost-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) might be preventable.MethodsThis open-label, multicenter randomized trial compared 133 kidney transplant recipients given intermediate-acting insulin isophane for postoperative afternoon glucose ≥140 mg/dl with 130 patients given short-acting insulin for fasting glucose ≥200 mg/dl (control). The primary end point was PTDM (antidiabetic treatment or oral glucose tolerance test–derived 2 hour glucose ≥200 mg/dl) at month 12 post-transplant.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat population, PTDM rates at 12 months were 12.2% and 14.7% in treatment versus control groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.39 to 1.76) and 13.4% versus 17.4%, respectively, at 24 months (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.49). In the per-protocol population, treatment resulted in reduced odds for PTDM at 12 months (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.01) and 24 months (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.24 to 1.20). After adjustment for polycystic kidney disease, per-protocol ORs for PTDM (treatment versus controls) were 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62) at 12 months and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.87) at 24 months. Significantly more hypoglycemic events (mostly asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic) occurred in the treatment group versus the control group. Within the treatment group, nonadherence to the insulin initiation protocol was associated with significantly higher odds for PTDM at months 12 and 24.ConclusionsAt low overt PTDM incidence, the primary end point in the intention-to-treat population did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups. In the per-protocol analysis, early basal insulin therapy resulted in significantly higher hypoglycemia rates but reduced odds for overt PTDM—a significant reduction after adjustment for baseline differences—suggesting the intervention merits further study.Clinical Trial registration number:NCT03507829

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less prevalent among men than women, but more men than women initiate kidney replacement therapy. Differences in CKD awareness may contribute to this gender gap, which may further vary by race/ethnicity. We aimed to investigate trends in CKD awareness and the association between individual characteristics and CKD awareness among US men versus women. Methods and findings We conducted a serial, cross-sectional analysis of 10 cycles (1999–2018) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Adult participants with CKD stages G3-G5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 mL/min/1.73m2) were included, unless they were on dialysis or medical information was missing. Serum creatinine was measured during NHANES medical exams. CKD stage was classified by eGFR, based on the CKD-EPI formula. CKD awareness was assessed with the question: “Have you ever been told by a health care professional you had weak or failing kidneys”, asked in standardized NHANES questionnaires on each survey. Using logistic regression models, we evaluated the association between sex and CKD awareness, adjusting for potential confounders including age, race/ethnicity and comorbidities. We stratified CKD awareness by 5 pre-defined calendar-year periods and conducted all analyses for the complete study population as well as the Caucasian and African American subpopulations. We found that among 101871 US persons participating in NHANES, 4411 (2232 women) had CKD in stages G3-G5. These participants were, on average, 73±10 years old, 25.3% reported diabetes, 78.0% reported hypertension or had elevated blood pressure during medical examinations and 39.8% were obese (percentages were survey-weighted). CKD awareness was more prevalent among those with higher CKD stage, younger age, diabetes, hypertension and higher body mass index. CKD awareness was generally low (<22.5%), though it increased throughout the study period, remaining consistently higher among men compared to women, with a decreasing gender gap over time (adjusted odds ratio [men-to-women] for CKD awareness = 2.71 [1.31–5.64] in period 1; = 1.32 [0.82–2.12] in period 5). The sex difference in CKD awareness was smaller in African American participants, in whom CKD awareness was generally higher. Using serum creatinine rather than eGFR as the CKD-defining exposure, CKD awareness increased with rising serum creatinine, in a close to identical fashion among both sexes during 1999–2008, while during 2009–2018, CKD awareness among women increased earlier than among men (i.e. with lower serum creatinine levels). Conclusions CKD awareness is lower among US women than men. The narrowing gap between the sexes in more recent years and the results on CKD awareness by serum creatinine indicate that health care professionals have previously been relying on serum creatinine to inform patients about their condition, but in more recent years have been using eGFR, which accounts for women’s lower serum creatinine levels due to their lower muscle mass. Additional efforts should be made to increase CKD awareness among both sexes.

IntroductionReported sex differences in the etiology, population prevalence, progression rates, and health outcomes of people with CKD may be explained by differences in health care.MethodsWe evaluated sex as the variable of interest in a health care–based study of adults (n=227,847) with at least one outpatient eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 measurement denoting probable CKD in Stockholm from 2009 to 2017. We calculated the odds ratios for diagnosis of CKD and provision of RASi and statins at inclusion, and hazard ratios for CKD diagnosis, visiting a nephrologist, or monitoring creatinine and albuminuria during follow-up.ResultsWe identified 227,847 subjects, of whom 126,289 were women (55%). At inclusion, women had lower odds of having received a diagnostic code for CKD and were less likely to have received RASi and statins, despite having guideline-recommended indications. In time-to-event analyses, women were less likely to have received a CKD diagnosis (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.45) and visited a nephrologist (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.48) regardless of disease severity, presence of albuminuria, or criteria for referral. Women were also less likely to undergo monitoring of creatinine or albuminuria, including those with diabetes or hypertension. These differences remained after adjustment for comorbidities, albuminuria, and highest educational achievement, and among subjects with confirmed CKD at retesting. Although in absolute terms all nephrology-care indicators gradually improved over time, the observed sex gap persisted.ConclusionsThere were profound sex differences in the detection, recognition, monitoring, referrals, and management of CKD. The disparity was also observed in people at high risk and among those who had guideline-recommended indications.

SARS-CoV-2 gains cell entry via angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2, a membrane-bound enzyme of the “alternative” (alt) renin-angiotensin system (RAS). ACE2 counteracts angiotensin II by converting it to potentially protective angiotensin 1–7. Using mass spectrometry, we assessed key metabolites of the classical RAS (angiotensins I–II) and alt-RAS (angiotensins 1–7 and 1–5) pathways as well as ACE and ACE2 concentrations in 159 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, stratified by disease severity (severe, n = 76; non-severe: n = 83). Plasma renin activity (PRA-S) was calculated as the sum of RAS metabolites. We estimated ACE activity using the angiotensin II:I ratio (ACE-S) and estimated systemic alt-RAS activation using the ratio of alt-RAS axis metabolites to PRA-S (ALT-S). We applied mixed linear models to assess how PRA-S and ACE/ACE2 concentrations affected ALT-S, ACE-S, and angiotensins II and 1-7. Median angiotensin I and II levels were higher with severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (angiotensin I: 86 versus 30 pmol/L, p < 0.01; angiotensin II: 114 versus 58 pmol/L, p < 0.05), demonstrating activation of classical RAS. The difference disappeared with analysis limited to patients not taking a RAS inhibitor (angiotensin I: 40 versus 31 pmol/L, p = 0.251; angiotensin II: 76 versus 99 pmol/L, p = 0.833). ALT-S in severe COVID-19 increased with time (days 1–6: 0.12; days 11–16: 0.22) and correlated with ACE2 concentration (r = 0.831). ACE-S was lower in severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (1.6 versus 2.6; p < 0.001), but ACE concentrations were similar between groups and correlated weakly with ACE-S (r = 0.232). ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19, however, did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. Overall RAS alteration in severe COVID-19 resembled severity of disease-matched patients with influenza. In mixed linear models, renin activity most strongly predicted angiotensin II and 1-7 levels. ACE2 also predicted angiotensin 1-7 levels and ALT-S. No single factor or the combined model, however, could fully explain ACE-S. ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19 did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. In conclusion, angiotensin II was elevated in severe COVID-19 but was markedly influenced by RAS inhibitors and driven by overall RAS activation. ACE-S was significantly lower with severe COVID-19 and did not correlate with ACE concentrations. A shift to the alt-RAS axis because of increased ACE2 could partially explain the relative reduction in angiotensin II levels.