Inhibition of platelet activation could decrease thrombotic events in hemodialysis PF4/H antibody-positive patients

The Role of Platelets in Diabetic Kidney Disease

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is among the most common microvascular complications in patients with diabetes, and it currently accounts for the majority of end-stage kidney disease cases worldwide. The pathogenesis of DKD is complex and multifactorial, including systemic and intra-renal inflammatory and coagulation processes. Activated platelets play a pivotal role in inflammation, coagulation, and fibrosis. Mounting evidence shows that platelets play a role in the pathogenesis and progression of DKD. The potentially beneficial effects of antiplatelet agents in preventing progression of DKD has been studied in animal models and clinical trials. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the role of platelets in DKD, including the potential therapeutic effects of antiplatelet therapies.

Antiplatelet agents for chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.

The association of anti-platelet factor 4/heparin antibodies with early and delayed thromboembolism after cardiac surgery

Essentials We evaluated antibody status, thromboembolism and survival after cardiac surgery. Positive antibody tests are common - over 50% are seropositive at 30 days. Seropositivity did not increase thromboembolism or impair survival after cardiac surgery. Results show heparin induced thrombocytopenia antibody screening after surgery is not warranted.

SUMMARY

Background Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic response to heparin therapy with platelet-activating, anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies leading to thrombocytopenia associated with thromboembolism. Objective We tested the hypothesis that anti-PF4/heparin antibodies are associated with thromboembolism after cardiac surgery. Methods This multicenter, prospective cohort study collected laboratory and clinical data up to 30 days after surgery and longer-term clinical follow-up data. The primary outcome variable combined new arterial or venous thromboembolic complications (TECs) with all-cause death until 90 days after surgery. Laboratory analyses included platelet counts and anti-PF4/heparin antibody titers (GTI ELISA), with a confirmatory excess heparin step and serotonin release assay. Chi-square testing was used to test the relationship between our outcome and HIT antibody seropositivity. Results Initially, 1021 patients were enrolled between August 2006 and May 2009, and follow-up was completed in December 2014. Seropositivity defined by OD > 0.4 was common, being almost 20% preoperatively, > 30% by discharge, and > 60% by day 30. Death (1.7% within 30 days) or TECs (69 in total) were more likely if the partient was seronegative (OD < 0.4), but positivity defined by OD > 1.0 or including an excess heparin confirmatory step resulted in equal incidence of death or TECs, whether the patient was seronegative or seropositive. Incorporating the serotonin release assay for platelet-activating antibodies did not alter these findings. Conclusions Seropositivity for anti-PF4/heparin antibodies does not increase the risk of death or thromboembolism after cardiac surgery. Screening is not indicated, and seropositivity should only be interpreted in the context of clinical evidence for HIT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Duke IRB Protocol #00010736.