Advertisement

Renal Replacement Therapy

, 5:42 | Cite as

Assessment of the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in peritoneal dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical trials

  • Minoru ItoEmail author
  • Yosuke Saka
  • Yusuke Kuroki
  • Kaoru Yasuda
  • Hiraku Tsujimoto
  • Yasushi Tsujimoto
  • Hidemichi Yuasa
  • Munekazu Ryuzaki
  • Yasuhiko Ito
  • Hidetomo Nakamoto
Open Access
Research

Abstract

Background

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, are widely used in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease, as a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade has renoprotective effects. Several studies show that preserving residual renal function is important for a better prognosis in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Here, we systematically reviewed the beneficial or harmful effects of RAS blockade in PD patients.

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, the Ichushi web databases, and other resources were selected to search clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials (RCT) published before April 14, 2017, using “peritoneal dialysis,” “angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,” “angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers,” and “randomized controlled trial” as keywords. Desired results were total mortality, technical survival, urine volume, residual renal function calculated by glomerular filtration rate (GFR), cardiovascular events, and anuria progression rate. The study protocol is registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under the registration number CRD42018104106.

Results

Of a total of 339 studies, eight were identified as suitable for the analysis. Only one study was blinded, whereas the other seven studies were open-label. RASI appeared to preserve residual renal function, GFR (4 studies, 163 participants, mean difference [MD] 0.97 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–1.44), and urine volume (6 studies, 194 participants, MD 142.56 mL 95% CI 25.42–259.69), although there were no beneficial effects of RASI on total mortality, technical survival, cardiovascular events, and anuria rate.

Conclusions

Our analysis found that RASIs contribute to preserving GFR and urine volume in PD patients. As the number of study participants is small, further studies with a larger sample size are required.

Keywords

Peritoneal dialysis Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors Residual renal function Systematic review 

Abbreviations

ACEI

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

ARB

Angiotensin receptor blocker

CI

Confidence interval

CKD

Chronic kidney disease

CPGs

Clinical practice guidelines

ESKD

End-stage kidney disease

GFR

Glomerular filtration rate

HD

Hemodialysis

MD

Mean difference

PD

Peritoneal dialysis

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

PROSPERO

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

RAS

Renin-angiotensin system

RASI

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitor

RCT

Randomized controlled trials

RD

Risk difference

RR

Risk ratio

RRF

Residual renal function

SR

Systematic review

Background

Residual renal function (RRF) is recognized as a significant factor in improving the prognosis of patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). Preserving RRF contributes to achieving adequate dialysis targets and improving fluid status. A reanalysis report of the Canada-USA (CANUSA) Peritoneal Dialysis Study Group study showed that an increment in urine volume or preserved glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is associated with better chances of survival [1]. Furthermore, several past studies have reported the benefits of preserving RRF in PD patients [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. For these reasons, a renoprotective strategy is crucial for improving the mortality and technical survival of PD patients.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), have renoprotective and mortality-reducing effects in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients [7, 8]. These drugs are generally used as first-line therapy for CKD patients with hypertension. The clinical practice guideline of the Japanese Society of Nephrology also recommends RASIs for CKD patients [9]. In view of these facts, the clinical question arose as to whether RASIs preserve the RRF of PD patients. Several clinical studies were performed to estimate the effect of RASIs on RRF of PD patients [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22], including both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, with conflicting results.

This study intended to evaluate the beneficial or harmful effects of RASIs as well as the effect of preserving RRF in patients receiving PD. We systematically reviewed relevant RCTs investigating the effect of RASIs on residual renal function in PD patients. We also examined the differences in impact of ACEIs and ARBs.

Methods

The study is presented following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [23]. The protocol for the systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration ID CRD42018104106.

Study selection and data management

Initially, with the help of an expert librarian, we searched article records included in previously reported SRs and clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) dealing with the effects of RASIs in PD from 1 January 1988 to 10 April 2017. The searched databases were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ichushi web, and other resources. After the search for optimal SRs and CPGs, we identified the articles included in the SRs and CPGs.

We then electronically screened the same databases to identify any articles missed by the initial search (1 January 1988 to 10 April 2017). The keywords for database screening were “peritoneal dialysis,” “angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,” “angiotensin type II receptor blockers,” and “randomized controlled trial.” The full strategy is described in Additional file 1. In the case of articles where the required data were not available, we contacted the authors by email.

Four reviewers (MI, YS, YK, and KY) independently screened all the titles and abstracts according to a priori selection criteria. Subsequently, the same reviewers assessed the eligibility of the full texts of all the potentially suitable articles.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We included completed RCTs that assessed the effects of RASIs in patients undergoing PD. Our primary outcome was the RRF (change of urine volume or GFR). Other outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, technical survival, anuria rate, and cardiovascular events.

The comparison patterns were as follows:
  1. 1.

    ACEI or ARB + other drugs versus placebo + other drugs

     
  2. 2.

    ACEI or ARB + other drugs versus other drugs

     
  3. 3.

    ACEI + other drugs versus ARB + other drugs.

     

We also included trials with adult (> 18 years old) end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients undergoing PD without restrictions on age, sex, or ESKD as a primary disease.

We excluded studies involving participants with acute kidney injuries, receiving hemodialysis (HD) or PD/HD combined therapy and anuria.

Data extraction

Data extraction was carried out independently by the four review authors (MI, YS, YK, and KY) using standardized methods. Where a comparison of more than two interventional drugs or control drugs existed in a study, the reports were handled as separate studies in one analysis. Studies not written in English were translated before assessment.

Risk of bias assessment

The four review authors (MI, YS, YK, and KY) independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies using the risk of bias tool in the Cochrane handbook [24].

We assessed the random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and others. Risks in each domain were assessed in the following three categories: high risk, low risk, and unclear. Any discrepancy was identified and resolved through discussion (with a third author where necessary).

Data synthesis and statistical methods

We conducted the analysis comparing the effects of RASIs and other drugs as “SR1.1.” regarding ACEIs and ARBs together as RASIs although ACEIs and ARBs have different mechanisms of action. The market share of ARBs is larger than ACEIs in Japan, suggesting that a separate comparison of the effects of ARBs and ACEIs against other drugs does not reflect reality. Additionally, we conducted a comparison of the independent effects of ACEIs and ARBs as “SR1.2.” to address the question of whether either is more favorable for PD patients.

The results were analyzed using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.3 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcome results with a low event rate were expressed as risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where a significant number of events occurred, the risk ratio (RR) was used for analysis. For continuous scale outcomes (residual renal function and urine volume), results were expressed as the mean difference (MD). Heterogeneity across the included studies was assessed statistically by calculating the overall I2 values. Data were pooled using the random-effect model.

Results

Results of search

The previous SR and CPG search yielded two SRs [25, 26] which contained four [10, 11, 15, 27] and six [10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20] RCTs in each, with two [10, 15] duplicated. We thus identified eight articles from this step. Through a new database search, 329 titles and abstracts were identified, of which, three articles [11, 19, 22] were potentially eligible. We carried out full-text article assessments of 11 studies and excluded three for the following reasons: duplication [11], inconsistent outcomes [27], and a too short observational period [22]. Finally, eight trials were entered into this review. Figure 1 shows the details of the study selection process.
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram showing a selection of randomized controlled trials

The eight RCTs included in the analysis are summarized in Table 1. One study assessed the efficacies of ACEIs [10]. Two studies compared the effects of ACEIs and ARBs with a cross-over RCT [16], and a parallel RCT [20]. The remaining five studies assessed the effects of ARB [11, 15, 17, 18, 19], where one study conducted two intervention groups using different ARBs [19].
Table 1

Characteristics of studies included in this systematic review

Studies

Study design

Location/setting

No. patients (intervention/control)

Age, years (intervention/control)

Treatment of intervention group

Treatment of control group

Follow-up, months

Li [10]

Open-label RCT

Hong Kong/single center

30/30

58.0/59.1

Ramipril 5 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy except for ACEI or ARB or both

12

Phakdeekitcharoen [16]

Open-label cross-over RCT

Thailand/single center

29

44.8

Group 1:

Enalapril 10 mg/day

Group 2:

Candesartan 8 mg/day

Group 1:

Candesartan 8 mg/day

Group 2:

Enalapril 10 mg/day

4

Reyes-Marín [20]

Parallel RCT

Mexico/single center

30/30

42.5/49.2

Group 1:

Enalapril 10 mg/day

Group 2:

Losartan 50 mg/day

12

Suzuki [11]

Double-blind RCT

Japan/single center

14/10

56/57

Valsartan 40~80 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy

12

Suzuki [15]

Open-label RCT

Japan/single center

18/16

63.5/63.5

Valsartan 40~80 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy except for ACEI or ARB or both

24

Shigenaga [19]

Open-label RCT

Japan/single center

15/15

52.9/53.3

Group 1:

Candesartan l~4 mg/day

Group 2:

Valsartan ~ 40 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy except for ACEI or ARB or both

6

Zhong [18]

Open-label RCT

China/single center

24/20

44

Irbesartan 300 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy except for ACEI or ARB or both

12

Wang [17]

Open-label RCT

China/single center

19/13

42

Valsartan 80 mg/day

Conventional antihypertensive therapy except for ACEI or ARB or both

28

Abbreviations: RCT randomized controlled trial, ACEI angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ARB angiotensin receptor blocker

Risk of bias in included studies

Table 2 summarizes the details of our assessment of the risk of bias among the included studies. Four studies used computer-generated lists for randomization [10, 15, 17, 18]. Two of these had not detailed the randomization method [17, 18], but the authors of a previous SR confirmed that these studies also used the computer-generated methods [26]. One study provided no information on allocation concealment [18]. Three studies had incomplete outcome data [16, 17, 18]. Most of our primary outcomes analyzed in the review were obtained from objective data, and not influenced by the blinding of patients and investigators.
Table 2

Summary of risk of bias assessment

Studies

Cochrane collaboration tool

Random sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding of participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome assessment

Incomplete outcome data

Selective outcome reporting

Other sources of bias

Li [10]

Low risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Phakdeekitcharoen [16]

Unclear risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

High risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Reyes-Marin [20]

Unclear risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Suzuki [11]

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Suzuki [15]

Low risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Shigenaga [19]

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Zhong [18]

Low risk

High risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

High risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Wang [17]

Low risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Low risk

High risk

Unclear risk

Unclear risk

Effects of interventions

The summaries of the findings for all the outcomes in SR1.1. and SR1.2. are summarized in Additional files 2 and 3, respectively. SR1.1. is a comparison of RASIs including ARBs or ACEIs versus conventional therapy for preserving RRF in PD patients. SR1.2. is a comparison of ARBs versus ACEIs for preserving RRF in PD patients.

Residual renal function (GFR)

SR1.1.

Four studies (ARB, 3; ACEI, 1) reported the effects of RASIs versus other antihypertensive drugs on RRF after follow-up periods of over 12 months. The comparison of RASIs and other drugs indicated a small but significant benefit in preserving RRF (mean difference [MD] 0.97 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–1.44, I2 = 79%), suggesting that RASIs have renoprotective effects compared to other antihypertensive drugs (Fig. 2). However, significant heterogeneity was identified. In subgroup analysis, ARBs significantly reduced the decline of RRF (MD 1.11 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.38–1.83, I2 = 76%), and ACEIs also preserved RRF (MD 0.72 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.54–0.90) compared to other antihypertensive drugs. There was significant heterogeneity for the effects of ARBs.
Fig. 2

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on GFR (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on GFR (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; SD, standard deviation, CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

One study found no significant differences in RRF preservation between ARBs and ACEIs over 12 months (MD 0.18 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.40) (Fig. 2).

Urine volume

SR1.1.

Five studies reported the efficacies of ARBs versus other antihypertensive drugs on urine volume change after follow-up periods of over 6 months. One study compared two ARBs (Candesartan and Valsartan) and controls [19]. Therefore, we deemed that the study involved two comparisons (Shigenaga 2009 and Shigenaga 2009b) and included the data as two independent studies. ARBs significantly prevented the reduction in urine volume with extensive heterogeneity (MD 142 mL, 95% CI 25.42–259.69, I2 = 80%) (Fig. 3). There were no data about the urine volume change in the study comparing ACEIs and other drugs.
Fig. 3

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on urine volume (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on urine volume (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; SD, standard deviation, CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

One study reported no significant difference in urine volume change between ARBs and ACEIs over 12 months (MD 145.0 mL, 95% CI − 8.35 to 298.35) (Fig. 3).

Anuria

SR1.1.

Three studies (ARB, 2; ACEI, 1) indicated no significant difference in the risk ratio of the complete anuria progression rate between patients treated with RASIs and those treated with other antihypertensive drugs after follow-up periods greater than 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48–1.02, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 4). In subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in the risk ratio of the anuria progression rate in the studies comparing ARBs and other antihypertensive drugs (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.43–1.94, I2 = 0%), though ACEIs showed a significant reduction of the anuria progression rate (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41–0.99).
Fig. 4

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on anuria progression rate (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on anuria progression rate (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

The comparison between ARBs and ACEIs in one study showed no significant difference in the risk ratio of the anuria progression rate over twelve months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.57–2.07) (Fig. 4).

All-cause mortality

SR1.1.

We identified the outcome data of all-cause mortality from all six studies (ARB, 5; ACEI, 1). The comparison indicated no significant difference in the risk difference of all-cause mortality between RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs after follow-up periods of over 6 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.05, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 5). The subgroup analysis also showed no significant differences when comparing ARBs and other drugs (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.05 to 0.05, I2 = 0%), and ACEIs and other drugs (RD 0.03, 95% CI − 0.11 to 0.17).
Fig. 5

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on total mortality (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on total mortality (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

The comparison between ARBs and ACEIs in one study showed no significant difference in the risk difference of all-cause mortality over 12 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.06) (Fig. 5).

Technical survivals

SR1.1.

All six studies (ARB, 5; ACEI, 1) were included in the analysis, indicating no significant difference in the risk difference of technical survival between RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs after follow-up periods of over 6 months (RD − 0.00, 95% CI − 0.05 to 0.04, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 6). In one study of ARBs [18], the authors mentioned that one participant in the control group transferred to hemodialysis because of ultrafiltration failure; however, the participant was not counted in the final data. Thus, we considered the participant as having a technical failure and added one to the analysis. In another study of ACEIs [10], two participants received kidney transplants and dropped out of the study. We considered them not to be technical failure patients and removed them from the participant tally. The subgroup analysis also showed no significant differences in both comparisons of ARBs and other drugs (RD − 0.01, 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.04, I2 = 0%), nor in the comparison of ACEIs and other drugs (RD 0.03, 95% CI − 0.11 to 0.18).
Fig. 6

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on technical survivals (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on technical survivals (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

The comparison between ARBs and ACEIs in one study [20] showed no significant difference in the risk difference of technical survival over 12 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.06) (Fig. 6).

Cardiovascular events

SR1.1.

Cardiovascular events were reported in two studies (ARB, 1; ACEI, 1). The comparison showed no significant difference in the risk difference of cardiovascular events between RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs after follow-up periods of over 12 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.09 to 0.09, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 7). The subgroup analysis also showed no significant differences in both comparisons of ARBs versus other drugs (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.11 to 0.11, I2 = 0%), nor in the comparison of ACEIs versus other drugs (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.09 to 0.09).
Fig. 7

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular events (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on cardiovascular events (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

The comparison between ARBs and ACEIs in one study showed no significant difference in the risk ratio of a cardiovascular event (RR 1.33, 95% CI − 0.33 to 5.45) (Fig. 7).

Hyperkalemia

SR1.1.

Hyperkalemia was reported in one study comparing two ARBs and other antihypertensive drugs and showed no significant difference in the risk of hyperkalemia over 6 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.10 to 0.10) (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8

Comparison of RASIs and other antihypertensive drugs on hyperkalemia (SR1.1.). Comparison of ARBs and ACEIs on hyperkalemia (SR1.2.). RASI, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; CI, confidence intervals

SR1.2.

The comparison between ARBs and ACEIs in two studies showed no significant difference in the risk difference of hyperkalemia after follow-up periods of over 4 months (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.06 to 0.06, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 8).

Discussion

In this systematic review, we evaluated eight RCTs and 320 participants. Five studies compared ARBs with other antihypertensive drugs [11, 15, 17, 18, 19], and one assessed two ARBs and control drugs [19]. One study compared ACEIs with other antihypertensive drugs [10]. Two studies, one of which was a cross-over RCT [16], compared ARBs with ACEIs [16, 20]. Some meta-analysis in this report was performed combining studies with different follow-up periods, although we considered these variations to be clinically acceptable.

RASIs appeared to preserve RRF in GFR (MD 0.97 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.49–1.44) and urine volume (MD 142.56 ml, 95% CI 25.42–259.69), while there were no beneficial effects of RASIs on total mortality, technical survival, cardiovascular events, and anuria progression rate. RASIs did not increase the risk of hyperkalemia as a harmful effect of intervention for PD patients, although hyperkalemia is the decisive reason for which physicians decide to stop RASIs for CKD patients. However, the meta-analysis of urine volume included the RCTs comparing only ARBs and other drugs, without RCTs comparing ACEIs and other drugs. Only ACEIs showed a beneficial effect (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41–0.99) in a subgroup analysis of the anuria progression rate, indirectly suggesting a difference in drug effects between ARBs and ACEIs. However, the direct comparison of ACEIs with ARBs revealed no superiority in either RASI drug in any outcome. In the analysis of GFR and urine volume, we identified a substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 79%, p = 0.002 and I2 = 80%, p = 0.02, respectively). However, the point estimates in both analyses overlapped or indicated the same tendency in treatment effects (Figs. 2 and 3). Therefore, we considered that the heterogeneities were not clinical. Further detailed subgroup analysis was not possible due to the small number of studies identified.

Most nephrologists prescribe ACEIs and ARBs to preserve renal function in early-stage CKD patients [28]. Several meta-analyses [8, 29] and RCTs [7, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35] have reported that ACEIs and ARBs have beneficial effects on the total mortality and the progression to ESKD regardless of the CKD stage and the presence of diabetes. However, recent studies [36, 37] revealed that increased creatinine or decreased GFR after the initiation of RASIs correlated with worse renal outcome in predialysis CKD patients. Another study reported that discontinuation of RASIs delayed the progression to ESKD in advanced CKD patients [38]. These opposing effects of RASIs on predialysis patients make it difficult to determine whether RASIs have renoprotective effects in patients undergoing PD. Nevertheless, we identified a clear renoprotective effect of RASIs in PD patients. The mechanisms underlying the renoprotective impact of RASIs for PD patients are multiple and complex and could involve renal hemodynamic factors [39] and histochemical factors [40, 41, 42]. The two studies [11, 19] included in this SR showed cardioprotective effects of RASI in PD patients, which might contribute to the mechanism protecting renal function. Furthermore, these results might be due to the synergistic effects of RASI together with PD.

Our results agree with those of previous reported SRs [25, 26] that demonstrated the renoprotective effects of RASIs in PD patients. RCTs included in previous SRs overlapped with those in our SR. The previous SRs used GFR and anuria progression rates to assess the renoprotective effects of RASIs, though our study evaluated RRF using urine volume in addition to the above. We therefore included two RCTs into our SR, which assessed urine volume as an outcome representing RRF. Urine volume is one of the vital parameters by which patients can be aware of maintaining their renal function.

Several observational studies evaluated the renoprotective effects of RASIs for PD patients which, other than the RCTs included in our SR, showed contradictory results. A retrospective study from Hong Kong reported that the rate of decline of residual GFR was slower in patients who received ACEIs or ARBs [12]. However, three sizeable cohort studies from the US A and the Netherlands concluded that RASIs had no renoprotective benefits for PD patients [13, 14, 21]. The reason for the discrepancy between our findings and the trials showing no benefits of RASIs is complicated. The RCTs included in our SR had stricter patient selection criteria than the observational studies, meaning that patients’ background characteristics in the RCTs and the observational studies were considerably different. Therefore, the beneficial effects of RASIs on PD patients might vary according to the patients’ individual conditions.

This study has several limitations. First, the number of eligible studies investigating the effect of RASIs in PD patients was very small as we limited them to RCTs. Second, most of the outcomes were not assessed in a blinded manner. Consequently, outcomes such as mortality and technical survival might be affected by performance and detection bias, although residual renal function and urine volume might not be affected. Several past studies [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] indicated that preserved residual renal function or urine volume were surrogate markers of hard outcomes such as mortality or technical survival. However, the extent by which residual renal function or urine volume improves these outcomes is unclear. Third, heterogeneity of observation period, type of medicine, and patient background exist between each RCT. Finally, ACEI has different pharmacologic actions than ARB. Although this study showed no difference in primary outcomes between ACEIs and ARBs, only one RCT was eligible for most of the outcomes. Therefore, the possibility of there being different conclusions cannot be excluded. To resolve the abovementioned limitations, more extensive studies, including cohort studies, are warranted.

Conclusion

Our analysis revealed that RASIs contribute to preserving GFR and urine volume in PD patients. As the number of study participants was small, further studies with a larger sample size are required.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Shinichi Abe, Mieko Mitani, and Chihiro Ishihara, librarians of the Japan Medical Library Association Expert Searching Working Group for Clinical Practice Guidelines, for advice on the search strategies. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Authors’ contributions

MI, YS, YK, KY, MR, YI, and HY contributed to the research idea and study design. MI, YS, YK, and KY contributed to the data acquisition and the quality assessment of the risk of bias. MI, YS, and HY contributed to the data analysis/interpretation. HT, YT, and HY contributed to the supervision in all steps of the systematic review. MI and YS wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors interpreted the data analysis and critically revised the manuscript.

Funding

There is no funding for this study. This systematic review is part of a clinical practice guideline revising project by the Japanese Society of Dialysis Therapy (JSDT).

The JSDT provided for all the endeavors and costs for the systematic review.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

41100_2019_238_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
Additional file 1: Search strategy.
41100_2019_238_MOESM2_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Additional file 2: Summary of findings for ARB or ACEI versus conventional therapy (SR1.1.) in PD patients.
41100_2019_238_MOESM3_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Additional file 3: Summary of findings for ARB versus ACEI (SR1.2.) in PD patients.

References

  1. 1.
    Bargman JM, Thorpe KE, Churchill DN. Relative contribution of residual renal function and peritoneal clearance to adequacy of dialysis: a reanalysis of the CANUSA study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001;12:2158–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paniagua R, Amato D, Vonesh E, Correa-Rotter R, Ramos A, Moran J, et al. Effects of increased peritoneal clearances on mortality rates in peritoneal dialysis: ADEMEX, a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002;13:1307–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Termorshuizen F, Korevaar JC, Dekker FW, Van Manen JG, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT. The relative importance of residual renal function compared with peritoneal clearance for patient survival and quality of life: an analysis of the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD)-2. AJKD. 2003;41:1293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marrón B, Remón C, Pérez-Fontán M, Quirós P, Ortíz A. Benefits of preserving residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis. Kidney Int. 2008;73:S42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maiorca R, Brunori G, Zubani R, Cancarini GC, Manili L, Camerini C, et al. Predictive value of dialysis adequacy and nutritional indices for mortality and morbidity in CAPD and HD patients. A longitudinal study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1995;10:2295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies SJ, Phillips L, Russell GI. Peritoneal solute transport predicts survival on CAPD independently of residual renal function. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998;13:962–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hsu TW, Liu JS, Hung SC, Kuo KL, Chang YK, Chen YC, et al. Renoprotective effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in patients with predialysis advanced chronic kidney disease, hypertension,and anemia. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:347–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xie X, Liu Y, Perkovic V, Li X, Ninomiya T, Hou W, et al. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD: a bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67:728–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Japanese Society of Nephrology. Essential points from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease 2018. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2019;23:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li PK-T, Chow K-M, Wong TY-H, Leung C-B, Szeto C-C. Effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor on residual renal function in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis. A randomized, controlled study. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:105–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Suzuki H, Nakamoto H, Okada H, Sugahara S, Kanno Y. A selective angiotensin receptor antagonist, Valsartan, produced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy associated with a reduction of arterial stiffness. Adv Perit Dial. 2003;19:59–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Szeto C-C, Kwan BC-H, Chow K-M, Chung S, Yu V, Cheng PM-S, et al. Predictors of residual renal function decline in patients undergoing continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2015;35:180–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shen JI, Saxena AB, Montez-Rath ME, Chang TI, Winkelmayer WC. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use and cardiovascular outcomes in patients initiating peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32:862–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shen JI, Saxena AB, Vangala S, Dhaliwal SK, Winkelmayer WC. Renin-angiotensin system blockers and residual kidney function loss in patients initiating peritoneal dialysis: an observational cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suzuki H, Kanno Y, Sugahara S, Okada H, Nakamoto H. Effects of an angiotensin II receptor blocker, Valsartan, on residual renal function in patients on CAPD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;43:1056–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phakdeekitcharoen B, Leelasa-nguan P. Effects of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker on potassium in CAPD patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;44:738–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang J, Xiao MY. Protective effects of Valsartan on residual renal function in patients on CAPD. Chinese J Blood Purif. 2005;4:605–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhong H, Sha Z-H, Cui T-L, Qiu H-Y, Liu F, Qin W, Fu P. Effects of Irbesartan on residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis patients. Chinese J Nephrol. 2007;23:413–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shigenaga A, Tamura K, Dejima T, Ozawa M, Wakui H, Masuda S, et al. Effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker on blood pressure variability and cardiovascular remodeling in hypertensive patients on chronic peritoneal dialysis. Nephron. 2009;112:c31–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reyes-Marín FA, Calzada C, Ballesteros A, Amato D. Comparative study of enalapril vs. losartan on residual renal function preservation in automated peritoneal dialysis. A randomized controlled study. Rev Investig. Clin. 2012;64:315–21.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kolesnyk I, Noordzij M, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT. Treatment with angiotensin II inhibitors and residual renal function in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int. 2011;31:53–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atabak S, Taziki O, Argani H, Abolghasemi R. Effects of oral enalapril and verapamil on dialysis adequacy and solute clearance in chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant. 2013;24:1170–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Julian PT, Higgins SG. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 24 April 2017.
  25. 25.
    Akbari A, Knoll G, Ferguson D, McCormick B, Davis A, Biyani M. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in peritoneal dialysis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Perit Dial Int. 2009;29:554–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang L, Zeng X, Fu P. Wu HM. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preserving residual kidney function in peritoneal dialysis patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:CD009120.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakamoto H, Kanno Y, Okada H, Suzuki H. Erythropoietin resistance in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Adv Perit Dial. 2004;20:111–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mangrum AJ, Bakris GL. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in chronic renal disease: Safety Issues. Semin Nephrol. 2004;24:168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nistor I, De Sutter J, Drechsler C, Goldsmith D, Soler MJ, Tomson C, et al. Effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in adults with diabetes mellitus and advanced chronic kidney disease not on dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33:12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving H-H, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kurokawa K, Chan JCN, Cooper ME, Keane WF, Shahinfar S, Zhang Z. Renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockade and renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a subanalysis of Japanese patients from the RENAAL study. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2006;10:193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis E, Hunsicker L, Raz I. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:851–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Agodoa LY, Appel L, Bakris GL, Beck G, Bourgoignie J, Briggs JP, et al. Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;285:2719–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kent DM, Jafar TH, Hayward RA, Tighiouart H, Landa M, de Jong P, et al. Progression risk, urinary protein excretion, and treatment effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in nondiabetic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18:1959–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hou FF, Zhang X, Zhang GH, Xie D, Chen PY, Zhang WR, et al. Efficacy and safety of benazepril for advanced chronic renal insufficiency. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clase CM, Barzilay J, Gao P, Smyth A, Schmieder RE, Tobe S, et al. Acute change in glomerular filtration rate with inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system does not predict subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes. Kidney Int. 2017;91:683–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmidt M, Mansfield KE, Bhaskaran K, Nitsch D, Sørensen HT, Smeeth L, et al. Serum creatinine elevation after renin-angiotensin system blockade and long term cardiorenal risks: cohort study. BMJ. 2017;356:j791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ahmed AK, Kamath NS, El Kossi M, El Nahas AM. The impact of stopping inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:3977–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zatz R, Dunn BR, Meyer TW, Anderson S, Rennke HG, Brenner BM. Prevention of diabetic glomerulopathy by pharmacological amelioration of glomerular capillary hypertension. J Clin Invest. 1986;77:1925–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wolf G, Haberstroh U, Neilson EG. Angiotensin II stimulates the proliferation and biosynthesis of type I collagen in cultured murine mesangial cells. Am J Pathol. 1992;140:95–107.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kagami S, Border WA, Miller DE, Noble NA. Angiotensin II stimulates extracellular matrix protein synthesis through induction of transforming growth factor-beta expression in rat glomerular mesangial cells. J Clin Invest. 1994;93:2431–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fogo AB. The role of angiotensin II and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 in progressive glomerulosclerosis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35:179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Minoru Ito
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yosuke Saka
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yusuke Kuroki
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kaoru Yasuda
    • 1
    • 5
  • Hiraku Tsujimoto
    • 1
  • Yasushi Tsujimoto
    • 1
  • Hidemichi Yuasa
    • 1
  • Munekazu Ryuzaki
    • 1
  • Yasuhiko Ito
    • 1
  • Hidetomo Nakamoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Working Group on Revision of Peritoneal Dialysis GuidelinesJapanese Society of Dialysis TherapyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nephrology and Dialysis CenterYabuki HospitalYamagataJapan
  3. 3.Department of NephrologyKasugai Municipal HospitalKasugaiJapan
  4. 4.Department of NephrologyJapanese Red Cross Fukuoka HospitalFukuokaJapan
  5. 5.Department of NephrologyMasuko Memorial HospitalNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations