Have We Just Scratched the Surface? A Narrative Review of Uremic Pruritus in 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Uremic pruritus is a highly prevalent and debilitating symptom in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The purpose of this review is to examine current evidence on the mechanisms and treatments of pruritus in CKD and highlight promising areas for future research. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Published literature, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case reports, and review articles, was searched for evidence pertaining to the pathophysiology and treatment of uremic pruritus. METHODS: A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to explore the molecular mechanisms underlying uremic pruritus, as well as the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for uremic pruritus. The potential role of patient sex in the pathophysiology and management of uremic pruritus is also discussed. KEY FINDINGS: The pathophysiology of uremic pruritus involves a complex interplay of uremic toxins, systemic inflammation, mast cell activation, and imbalance of opioid receptors. Classic treatment strategies for uremic pruritus include optimization of dialysis parameters, amelioration of CKD-related mineral and bone disease, topical emollients and analgesics, antihistamines, the anticonvulsant medications gabapentin and pregabalin, and ultraviolet light B (UV-B) phototherapy. Strong data to support many of these classical treatments for uremic pruritus are limited. Newly evolving treatment approaches for uremic pruritus include opioid receptor modulators, neurokinin-1 inhibitors, and cannabinoids. Further studies regarding their efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety in the CKD and ESKD population are needed before these agents are accepted into widespread use. Additional nonpharmacological strategies aimed at treating uremic pruritus include psychotherapy, acupuncture, omega-3 fatty acids, and exercise. Finally, sex differences may exist regarding uremic pruritus, but studies directly addressing sex-specific mechanisms of uremic pruritus remain absent. LIMITATIONS: High-quality evidence in the management of uremic pruritus remains lacking. Most recommendations are based on expert opinion or studies involving small numbers of patients. In addition, our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms behind uremic pruritus is incomplete and continues to evolve over time. IMPLICATIONS: Uremic pruritus is a common symptom which reduces quality of life in CKD and ESKD. The identification of novel targeted treatment approaches may ease the burden of uremic pruritus in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".