Search

Background and Objective: Real-world evidence (RWE) can complement and fill knowledge gaps from randomized controlled trials to assist in health-technology assessment (HTA) for regulatory decision-making. However, the generation of RWE is an intricate process with many sequential decision points, and different methods and approaches may impact the quality and reliability of evidence. Standardization and transparency in reporting these decisions is imperative to appraise RWE and incorporate it into HTA decision-making. A partnership between Canadian health system stakeholders, namely, Health Canada and Canada's Drug Agency (formerly the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health), was established to develop guidance for the standardization of reporting of RWE for regulatory and HTA decision-making in Canada., Study Design and Setting: A collaborative initiative to create structured guidance for RWE reporting in the context of regulatory and HTA decision-making., Results: The developed guidance aims to standardize and ensure transparent reporting of RWE to improve its reliability and usefulness in regulatory and HTA processes., Conclusion: This guidance can be adapted for other jurisdictions and will have future extensions to incorporate emerging issues with RWE and HTA decision-making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M. T. received financial support from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. M. T., T. A., and K. N. H. report a relationship with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health that includes consulting or advisory. N. M., L. L., and F. H. are employed with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Recent guidelines call for better evidence on health outcomes after living kidney donation., Objective: To determine the risk of hypertension in normotensive adults who donated a kidney compared with nondonors of similar baseline health. Their rates of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline and risk of albuminuria were also compared., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 924 standard-criteria living kidney donors enrolled before surgery and a concurrent sample of 396 nondonors. Recruitment occurred from 2004 to 2014 from 17 transplant centers (12 in Canada and 5 in Australia); follow-up occurred until November 2021. Donors and nondonors had the same annual schedule of follow-up assessments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting on a propensity score was used to balance donors and nondonors on baseline characteristics., Exposure: Living kidney donation., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg, or antihypertensive medication), annualized change in eGFR (starting 12 months after donation/simulated donation date in nondonors), and albuminuria (albumin to creatinine ratio ≥3 mg/mmol [≥30 mg/g])., Results: Among the 924 donors, 66% were female; they had a mean age of 47 years and a mean eGFR of 100 mL/min/1.73 m2. Donors were more likely than nondonors to have a family history of kidney failure (464/922 [50%] vs 89/394 [23%], respectively). After statistical weighting, the sample of nondonors increased to 928 and baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. During a median follow-up of 7.3 years (IQR, 6.0-9.0), in weighted analysis, hypertension occurred in 161 of 924 donors (17%) and 158 of 928 nondonors (17%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.75-1.66]). The longitudinal change in mean blood pressure was similar in donors and nondonors. After the initial drop in donors' eGFR after nephrectomy (mean, 32 mL/min/1.73 m2), donors had a 1.4-mL/min/1.73 m2 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5) per year lesser decline in eGFR than nondonors. However, more donors than nondonors had an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up (438/924 [47%] vs 49/928 [5%]). Albuminuria occurred in 132 of 905 donors (15%) and 95 of 904 nondonors (11%) (weighted hazard ratio, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.97-2.21]); the weighted between-group difference in the albumin to creatinine ratio was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.88-1.19)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of living kidney donors and nondonors with the same follow-up schedule, the risks of hypertension and albuminuria were not significantly different. After the initial drop in eGFR from nephrectomy, donors had a slower mean rate of eGFR decline than nondonors but were more likely to have an eGFR between 30 and 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00936078.

Background and Hypothesis: The MENTOR trial (MEmbranous Nephropathy Trial Of Rituximab) showed that rituximab was noninferior to cyclosporine in inducing complete or partial remission of proteinuria and was superior in maintaining proteinuria remission. However, the cost of rituximab may prohibit first-line use for some patients and health care payers., Methods: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rituximab compared with cyclosporine for the treatment membranous nephropathy from the perspective of a health care payer with a life-time time horizon. The model was informed by data from the MENTOR trial where possible; additional parameters including cost and utility inputs were obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of reduced cost biosimilar rituximab., Results: Rituximab for the treatment of membranous nephropathy was cost-effective (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of ${\$}$50 000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained; ${\$}$US 2021) compared with cyclosporine, with an ICER of ${\$}$8 373/QALY over a lifetime time horizon. The incremental cost of rituximab therapy was ${\$}$28 007 with an additional 3.34 QALYs compared with cyclosporine. Lower cost of rituximab biosimilars resulted in a more favourable ICER, and in some cases resulted in rituximab being dominant (lower cost and great benefit) compared to cyclosporine., Conclusions: Despite the greater cost of rituximab, it may be a cost-effective option for the treatment of membranous nephropathy when compared with cyclosporine. The cost-effectiveness of rituximab is further improved with the use of less expensive biosimilars., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Introduction: In recent decades, all-cause mortality has increased among individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), influenced by factors such as aetiology, standards of care and access to kidney replacement therapies (dialysis and transplantation). The recent COVID-19 pandemic also affected mortality over the past few years. Here, we outline the protocol for a systematic review to investigate global temporal trends in all-cause mortality among patients with CKD at any stage from 1990 to current. We also aim to assess temporal trends in the mortality rate associated with the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review of studies reporting mortality for patients with CKD following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will search electronic databases, national and multiregional kidney registries and grey literature to identify observational studies that reported on mortality associated with any cause for patients with CKD of all ages with any stage of the disease. We will collect data between April and August 2023 to include all studies published from 1990 to August 2023. There will be no language restriction, and clinical trials will be excluded. Primary outcome will be temporal trends in CKD-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include assessing mortality differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring causes of death and examining trends across CKD stages, country classifications, income levels and demographics., Ethics and Dissemination: A systematic review will analyse existing data from previously published studies and have no direct involvement with patient data. Thus, ethical approval is not required. Our findings will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023416084., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer., Methods: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus., Discussion: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022378858., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To estimate the real-world effectiveness of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) at reducing loss of kidney function and adverse kidney events in adults with varying levels of albuminuria., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study using administrative data, we matched new SGLT2i users 1:2 to DPP4i users on diabetes therapy, chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage, albuminuria and time-conditional propensity score. Albuminuria was defined by spot urine albumin or equivalent as mild, moderate or severe. Linear regression was used to model the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and Poisson regression for a composite kidney outcome (> 40% loss of eGFR, kidney replacement therapy or death from kidney causes) and all-cause mortality., Results: SGLT2i users (n = 19 238, median age 57.9 years, female 40.9%) had mostly nil/mild albuminuria (70.7%). SGLT2is were associated with a 1.36 (95% CI 0.98-1.74) mL/min/1.73m 2 (P < .001) acute (≤ 60 days) decline in eGFR, relative to DPP4is. Thereafter, SGLT2is were associated with 1.04 (95% CI 0.93-1.15) mL/min/1.73m 2 (P < .001) less annual eGFR loss. SGLT2i users had fewer adverse kidney outcomes (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.58 [0.47-0.71]; P < .001), but not all-cause mortality (IRR 0.82 [0.66-1.01]; P = .06). Outcomes were similar considering only those with nil/mild albuminuria., Conclusions: SGLT2is may prevent eGFR decline and reduce the risk of adverse kidney events in adults with diabetes and nil or non-severe albuminuria., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)