Features of Autosomal Recessive Alport Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Alport syndrome (AS) is one of the most frequent hereditary nephritis leading to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although X-linked (XLAS) inheritance is the most common form, cases with autosomal recessive inheritance with mutations in COL4A3 or COL4A4 are being increasingly recognized. A systematic review was conducted on autosomal recessive Alport syndrome (ARAS). Electronic databases were searched using related terms (until Oct 10th, 2018). From 1601 articles searched, there were 26 eligible studies with 148 patients. Female and male patients were equally affected. About 62% of patients had ESRD, 64% had sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) and 17% had ocular manifestation. The median at onset was 2.5 years for hematuria (HU), 21 years for ESRD, and 13 years for SNHL. Patients without missense mutations had more severe outcomes at earlier ages, while those who had one or two missense mutations had delayed onset and lower prevalence of extrarenal manifestations. Of 49 patients with kidney biopsy available for electron microscopy (EM) pathology, 42 (86%) had typical glomerular basement membrane (GBM) changes, while 5 (10%) patients showed GBM thinning only. SNHL developed earlier than previously reported. There was a genotype phenotype correlation according to the number of missense mutations. Patients with missense mutations had delayed onset of hematuria, ESRD, and SNHL and lower prevalence of extrarenal manifestations.


Supplementary
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

5-7
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

6-7
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

5-6
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. Fig.1 Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

6-7
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

5-7
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

5-7
Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

N/A
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). N/A Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis.

Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

N/A
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

Study selection
17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

8
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
8, Table 1 Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12).

N/A
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

11-13
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

13
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.