Impact of Recent Clinical Trials on Nephrology Practice: Are We in a Stagnant Era?

backgroundAlthough renal replacement therapy prevents death from uremia, survival among patients with acute and chronic kidney diseases (CKD) remains an imperative concern. The expected life span of US dialysis patients 60-64 years of age is approximately 4.5 years; this is similar to that of patients with lung cancer. Despite substantial progress in many medical specialties over the past decades (e.g., notable reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality rates in the general population), survival among dialysis patients has not improved significantly over the same period. A few decades ago, HIV infection and AIDS were pretty much a death sentence. Because of progress in HIV treatment, now it can be controlled with a daily pill, and ongoing research is pushing treatment even further and controls the virus with longer-acting treatment. A cure is no longer impossible for HIV and other viral infections such as hepatitis B and C and many malignancies, but so far there is no cure for CKD. SUMMARY: Billions of dollars have been spent on kidney disease research in the past decades, with no tangible progress in clinical practice. The challenges of improving the quantity and quality of trials in nephrology are enormous. The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in nephrology is lower than that in other medical subspecialties, and most of the big RCTs in nephrology yield negative results. Nephrology studies evaluating hard clinical endpoints or surrogate endpoints are scarce. KEY MESSAGE: Herein we discuss the slow progress in nephrology research that has impacted clinical practice over the last couple of decades and highlight the major obstacles, challenges, and potential solutions.