Interventions for weight loss in people with chronic kidney disease who are overweight or obese

Marguerite M Conley, Catherine M McFarlane, David W Johnson, Jaimon T Kelly, Katrina L Campbell, Helen L MacLaughlin, Marguerite M Conley, Catherine M McFarlane, David W Johnson, Jaimon T Kelly, Katrina L Campbell, Helen L MacLaughlin

Abstract

Background: Obesity and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are highly prevalent worldwide and result in substantial health care costs. Obesity is a predictor of incident CKD and progression to kidney failure. Whether weight loss interventions are safe and effective to impact on disease progression and clinical outcomes, such as death remains unclear.

Objectives: This review aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intentional weight loss interventions in overweight and obese adults with CKD; including those with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) being treated with dialysis, kidney transplantation, or supportive care.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 14 December 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of more than four weeks duration, reporting on intentional weight loss interventions, in individuals with any stage of CKD, designed to promote weight loss as one of their primary stated goals, in any health care setting.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and used the GRADE process to assess the certainty of evidence. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible.

Main results: We included 17 RCTs enrolling 988 overweight or obese adults with CKD. The weight loss interventions and comparators across studies varied. We categorised comparisons into three groups: any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control; any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention; and surgical intervention versus non-surgical intervention. Methodological quality was varied, with many studies providing insufficient information to accurately judge the risk of bias. Death (any cause), cardiovascular events, successful kidney transplantation, nutritional status, cost effectiveness and economic analysis were not measured in any of the included studies. Across all 17 studies many clinical parameters, patient-centred outcomes, and adverse events were not measured limiting comparisons for these outcomes. In studies comparing any weight loss intervention to usual care or control, weight loss interventions may lead to weight loss or reduction in body weight post intervention (6 studies, 180 participants: MD -3.69 kg, 95% CI -5.82 to -1.57; follow-up: 5 weeks to 12 months, very low-certainty evidence). In very low certainty evidence any weight loss intervention had uncertain effects on body mass index (BMI) (4 studies, 100 participants: MD -2.18 kg/m², 95% CI -4.90 to 0.54), waist circumference (2 studies, 53 participants: MD 0.68 cm, 95% CI -7.6 to 6.24), proteinuria (4 studies, 84 participants: 0.29 g/day, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.18), systolic (4 studies, 139 participants: -3.45 mmHg, 95% CI -9.99 to 3.09) and diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 139 participants: -2.02 mmHg, 95% CI -3.79 to 0.24). Any weight loss intervention made little or no difference to total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, and inflammation, but may lower low density lipoprotein cholesterol. There was little or no difference between any weight loss interventions (lifestyle or pharmacological) compared to dietary-only weight loss interventions for weight loss, BMI, waist circumference, proteinuria, and systolic blood pressure, however diastolic blood pressure was probably reduced. Furthermore, studies comparing the efficacy of different types of dietary interventions failed to find a specific dietary intervention to be superior for weight loss or a reduction in BMI. Surgical interventions probably reduced body weight (1 study, 11 participants: MD -29.50 kg, 95% CI -36.4 to -23.35), BMI (2 studies, 17 participants: MD -10.43 kg/m², 95% CI -13.58 to -7.29), and waist circumference (MD -30.00 cm, 95% CI -39.93 to -20.07) when compared to non-surgical weight loss interventions after 12 months of follow-up. Proteinuria and blood pressure were not reported. All results across all comparators should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies, very low quality of evidence and heterogeneity across interventions and comparators.

Authors' conclusions: All types of weight loss interventions had uncertain effects on death and cardiovascular events among overweight and obese adults with CKD as no studies reported these outcome measures. Non-surgical weight loss interventions (predominately lifestyle) appear to be an effective treatment to reduce body weight, and LDL cholesterol. Surgical interventions probably reduce body weight, waist circumference, and fat mass. The current evidence is limited by the small number of included studies, as well as the significant heterogeneity and a high risk of bias in most studies.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02379533 NCT00160108 NCT01150851 NCT01773382 NCT01036490 NCT01053130 NCT01047410 NCT01351675 NCT00811889 NCT01552954 NCT02444143 NCT01146288 NCT02276742.

Conflict of interest statement

  1. Marguerite Conley: none known

  2. Catherine McFarlane: none known

  3. David Johnson: none known

  4. Katrina Campbell: none known

  5. Helen MacLaughlin: has received consultancy fees, lecturing fees and support for travel expenses from Abbott Nutrition, Nestle

  6. Jaimon Kelly: none known

Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 1: Mean weight loss [kg] or post intervention body weight
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 2: Body mass index
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 3: Waist circumference
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 4: Waist‐to‐hip ratio
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 5: Creatinine clearance [points]
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 6: Serum creatinine
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 7: Proteinuria
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 8: Systolic blood pressure
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 9: Diastolic blood pressure
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 10: HbA1c
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 11: Fasting glucose
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 12: Total cholesterol
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 13: LDL cholesterol
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 14: HDL cholesterol
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 15: Triglycerides
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 16: C‐reactive protein
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1: Any weight loss intervention versus usual care or control, Outcome 17: Dietary energy intake
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 1: Mean weight loss [kg] or post intervention body weight
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 2: Body mass index
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 3: Waist circumference
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 4: Waist‐to‐hip ratio
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 5: Creatinine clearance [mL/min/1.732]
2.6. Analysis
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 6: Proteinuria
2.7. Analysis
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 7: Measured GFR
2.8. Analysis
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 8: Systolic blood pressure
2.9. Analysis
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 9: Diastolic blood pressure
2.10. Analysis
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 10: HbA1c
2.11. Analysis
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 11: Fasting blood glucose
2.12. Analysis
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 12: C‐reactive protein
2.13. Analysis
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 13: Total cholesterol
2.14. Analysis
2.14. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 14: LDL cholesterol
2.15. Analysis
2.15. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 15: HDL cholesterol
2.16. Analysis
2.16. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 16: Triglycerides
2.17. Analysis
2.17. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 17: Dietary energy intake
2.18. Analysis
2.18. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 18: Quality of life: SF36 physical domain
2.19. Analysis
2.19. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 19: Quality of life: SF36 mental domain
2.20. Analysis
2.20. Analysis
Comparison 2: Any weight loss intervention versus dietary intervention, Outcome 20: Quality of life: CES‐D
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 1: Mean weight loss (change score)
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 2: Body mass index
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 3: Waist circumference (change score)
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 4: Body composition: fat mass (change score)
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 5: Proteinuria (change score)
3.6. Analysis
3.6. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 6: Serum creatinine (change score)
3.7. Analysis
3.7. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 7: C‐reactive protein (change score)
3.8. Analysis
3.8. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 8: Quality of life: SF36 physical domain (change score)
3.9. Analysis
3.9. Analysis
Comparison 3: Surgical versus non‐surgical weight loss intervention, Outcome 9: Quality of life: SF36 mental domain (change score)
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: stage of CKD, Outcome 1: Mean weight loss [kg or %]
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: stage of CKD, Outcome 2: Total cholesterol
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: duration of intervention, Outcome 1: Mean weight loss: post intervention body weight
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: duration of intervention, Outcome 2: Body mass index
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: duration of intervention, Outcome 3: Total cholesterol
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5: Weight loss intervention versus usual care or control: duration of intervention, Outcome 4: Dietary energy intake

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit