chronic kidney dz management in HIV guidelines


An updated guideline came out of the Infectious Diseases Society of America on the management of chronic kidney disease in patients with HIV (see hiv chr kidney dz infect dis society 2014 in dropbox, or doi:10.1093/cid/ciu730​). they note that chronic kidney disease is common in people with HIV, can be multifactorial (including direct HIV renal involvement and adverse medication effects), and is itself associated with increased morbidity and mortality. people with HIV with decreased GFR and albuminuria have an even higher risk of cardiovascular events (6-fold) than the increased risk in the general population (of note, the decreased GFR and albuminuria are independently associated with cardiovascular events, worse if both are present). 

the guideline committee stresses that these are guidelines and not intended to supplant clinical judgment in the management of individual patients. recommendations:

--check eGFR when antiretroviral therapy is initiated or changed, and at least twice a year in stable patients (strong rec, low qual evidence)
--check urine with urinalysis or quantitative measure of albuminuria/proteinuria at baseline, when HIV meds initiated or changed, and at least annually (weak rec, low qual evidence)
--in those with new-onset/newly discovered kidney disease, check chem panel, urinalysis, quantitative albuminuria (eg albumin/creat ratio from spot urine), assess temporal trends in eGFR, blood pressure, glucose in diabetics, markers of proximal tubular dysfunction (eg increased excretion of phosphorus and glycosuria with normal blood sugar are both highly specific markers of proximal tubular dysfunction) esp in those on tenofovir, renal ultrasound, review meds including nonprescription ones for both potential cause of renal dysfunction and if renal dosing required  (strong rec, low qual evidence) [some studies have also found increased tenofovir nephrotoxicity when combined with atazanavir, amprenavir or ritonavir-boosted PIs]
--their table 6 reviews the different HIV meds and renal dose-adjustments for decreased GFR [this is really helpful]
--refer to nephrologist if clinically significant decline in GFR (eg >25%, or if <60 ml/min/1.73m2). also consider if albuminuria>300mg/d or hematuria of renal origin. HIVAN (HIV associated nephropathy) typically presents with massive proteinuria in setting of advanced HIV disease, but one can be fooled, and biopsy is reasonable if considering steroid therapy.
--use either CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) to estimate GFR or Cockcroft-Gault equation to estimate creatinine clearance (strong rec, moderate qual evidence) -- both of these need just serum creatinine, age, gender. CKD-EPI more accurate, esp if GFR>60. for calculators, go to https://www.kidney.org/professionals/ 
--avoid tenofovir or other nephrotoxins (eg NSAIDS) if GFR<60 (strong rec, low qual evidence). also avoid in prepubertal children because of renal effects and bone mineral density loss
--if already on tenofovir and GFR declines >25% and to level<60, substitute alternative med (strong rec, low qual evidence)
--use ACE-I or ARB in people with HIVAN or clinically significant albuminuria (>30mg/d in diabetics, >300mg/d in nondiabetics(strong rec, high qual evidence)
--use statins if high risk of cardiovasc disease (strong rec, high qual evidence), aspirin balanced against individual's bleeding risk (weak rec, high qual evidence)
--BP targets are <140/90 in those with CKD and albuminuria <30gm/d (strong rec, moderate qual evidence); <130/80 if albuminuria 30-300 mg/d (weak rec, low qual evidence) [note that these differ from JNC-8 targets]
--consider steroids as adjunct to ART and ACE-I/ARB if biopsy confirmed HIVAN (weak rec, low qual evidence)​, though not in children
--in patients with ESRD, consider transplant (rates of patient/graft survival are now pretty high).

so, i think pretty useful guidelines, esp some of their tables (eg table 6 as noted, for renal dosing of HIV meds. other tables deal with antibiotic dosing and drug-drug interactions for immunosuppressants and HIV drugs -- eg prednisone, tacrolimus...)


Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more