Uremic pruritus is a common and burdensome symptom afflicting patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and has been declared a priority for CKD research by patients. The optimal treatments for uremic pruritus are not well defined. Systematic review. Adult patients with advanced CKD (stage ≥ 3) or receiving any form of dialysis. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to March 6, 2017, were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of uremic pruritus treatments in patients with advanced CKD (stage ≥ 3) or receiving any form of dialysis. 2 reviewers extracted data independently. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. Any intervention for the treatment of uremic pruritus was included. A quantitative change in pruritus intensity on a visual analogue, verbal rating, or numerical rating scale. 44 RCTs examining 39 different treatments were included in the review. These treatments included gabapentin, pregabalin, mast cell stabilizers, phototherapy, hemodialysis modifications, and multiple other systemic and topical treatments. The largest body of evidence was found for the effectiveness of gabapentin. Due to the limited number of trials for the other treatments included, we are unable to comment on their efficacy. Risk of bias in most studies was high. Heterogeneity in design, treatments, and outcome measures rendered comparisons difficult and precluded meta-analysis. Despite the acknowledged importance of uremic pruritus to patients, with the exception of gabapentin, the current evidence for treatments is weak. Large, simple, rigorous, multiarm RCTs of promising therapies are urgently needed.

Anxiety is highly prevalent among patients with cancer.^1-3 Approximately 10% to 19% of adults with cancer experience anxiety during or after cancer treatment.^2-4 Similarly, 14% to 27% of children with cancer experience anxiety.^5,6 Cancer-related anxiety is multifactorial and may stem from patients’ psychologic response to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and from changes in body image, sexual function, work, and social interactions.^1,7 Anxiety reduces patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can also reduce treatment adherence.^8-10 In 2014, the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommended individual and group psychologic interventions, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, applied relaxation, and pharmacologic approaches, to treat cancer-related anxiety.¹¹ Mindfulness, a type of mind and body intervention, was not identified as an intervention for the management of anxiety in these guidelines.^11,12

The effectiveness of T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) therapy for achieving histological remission remains undefined in patients on modern immunosuppression. We systematically identified, critically appraised and summarized the incidence and histological outcomes after TCMR treatment in patients on tacrolimus (Tac) and mycophenolic acid (MPA). English-language publications were searched in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Clinicaltrials.gov (NLM) up to January 2021. Study quality was assessed with National Institutes of Health Study Quality Tool. We pooled results using an inverse variance, random-effects model and report the binomial proportions with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Statistical heterogeneity was explored using the I² statistic. From 2,875 screened citations, we included 12 studies (1,255 participants). Fifty-eight percent were good/high quality while the rest were moderate quality. Thirty-nine percent of patients (95%CI 0.26-0.53, I² 77%) had persistent ≥Banff Borderline TCMR 2-9 months after anti-rejection therapy. Pulse steroids and augmented maintenance immunosuppression were mainstays of therapy, but considerable practice heterogeneity was present. A high proportion of biopsy-proven rejection exists after treatment emphasizing the importance of histology to characterize remission. Anti-rejection therapy is foundational to transplant management but well-designed clinical trials in patients on Tac/MPA immunosuppression are lacking to define the optimal therapeutic approach.

Background and Objectives: Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade involves dual therapy with a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), direct renin inhibitors (DRIs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). It is hypothesized that dual RAAS blockade would result in a more complete inhibition of the RAAS cascade. However, large clinical trials on dual RAAS inhibition have shown increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia without additional benefit on mortality, cardiovascular events, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression compared to RAAS inhibitor monotherapy in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The development of newer, more selective non-steroidal MRAs as cardiorenal protective therapies has created a new opportunity for dual RAAS inhibition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks of AKI and hyperkalemia with dual RAAS blockade in patients with DKD. Design, setting, participants, and measurements: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from 1 January 2006 to 30 May 2022. The study population included adult patients with DKD receiving dual RAAS blockade. A total of 31 RCTs and 33 048 patients were included in the systematic review. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects. Results: There were 208 AKI events in 2690 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 170 in 4264 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23–1.39). There were 304 hyperkalemia events in 2818 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 208 in 4396 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.32–2.94). A non-steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB showed no increase in the risk of AKI (pooled RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81–1.16) compared to ACEi or ARB monotherapy but had a 2-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 953 events in 7837 patients in dual therapy versus 454 events in 6895 patients in monotherapy (pooled RR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.84–2.28). A steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB had a 5-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 28 events in 245 at risk in dual therapy versus five events in 248 at risk in monotherapy (pooled RR 5.42 95% CI: 2.15–13.67). Conclusion: Dual therapy with RAASi is associated with an increased risk of AKI and hyperkalemia compared to RAASi monotherapy. Conversely, dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and non-steroidal MRAs have no additional risk of AKI but a similar risk of hyperkalemia, which is lower than dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and steroidal MRAs.

Objectives To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. Design A scoping review. Data sources A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. Eligibility criteria Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. Methods We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). Results From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either ‘within ED’ (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or ‘outside ED’ interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The ‘within ED’ and ‘outside ED’ interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. Conclusions We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.