Evidence Hub

In silico prediction of optimal multifactorial intervention in CKD

Agnieszka Latosińska, Ioanna K. Mina, N. V. Nguyen, Igor Golovko, Felix Keller, Gert J. Mayer, Peter R Rossing, Jan A. Staessen et al.

medRxiv, 2025

935 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background and Aims: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) significantly contributes to global morbidity and mortality. Early, targeted intervention offers an ideal strategy for mitigating this burden. Peptidomic changes inform on CKD onset and progression and hold insights for treatment strategies. We investigated the molecular effects of six different therapeutic interventions in silico in all possible combinations on the urine peptidome, aiming to identify the most beneficial treatment for individual patients. Method: This study predicted major adverse kidney events (MAKE), defined as a 40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or kidney failure (median follow up time of 1.50 (95%CI 0.35, 5.0)), using the urinary peptidomic classifier CKD273 in a retrospective cohort of 935 participants. The impact of various treatments on urinary peptidomic profiles, assessed from previous studies of four different drug-based interventions (MRA, SGLT2i, GLP1-RA and ARB), one dietary intervention (olive oil) or from exercise, was applied. Treatment effects were quantified through fold changes in peptide abundance after treatment, recalibrated to align with outcomes observed in randomized controlled trials and applied to patient-specific urinary profiles, simulating intervention effects and recalculation of CKD273 scores for each individual. For combination treatments, the effects of multiple interventions were combined to model their cumulative impact. Results: Simulated…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 935 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free