Search

Abstract Management of presenteeism in the context of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is essential for disease management, ensuring the workforce’s availability, and reducing health-related costs. The purpose of this case study was to investigate presenteeism, physical function, and exercise habits in three working patients with CKD and discuss their effects. Case 1 was a 71-year-old male security guard; Case 2 was a 72-year-old male agricultural worker; and Case 3 was an 83-year-old male civil engineering employee. Presenteeism was measured using the work functioning impairment scale (WFun), and physical function was measured using grip strength, skeletal muscle mass index, 10 m walk test, short physical performance battery, and exercise habits. The WFun assessment showed that only Case 3 had moderate presenteeism, and the barrier to employment was fatigue. Each value of physical function was higher than the reference value, but Case 3 had the lowest physical function values. All three patients had no exercise habits and were in the interest stage of behavior change. This case report indicates the existence of workers with CKD who need care for presenteeism, even if they have no problems with physical function or activities of daily living. To ensure work productivity in workers with CKD, clinicians may need to evaluate presenteeism, physical function, and exercise habits in addition to popular treatment and care.

Abstract Background This article is a duplicated publication from the Japanese version of “2019 JSDT Guidelines for Peritoneal Dialysis” with permission from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT). This clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed primarily by the Working Group on Revision of Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Guidelines of the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy. Recently, the definition and creation process for CPGs have become far more rigorous; traditional methods and formats no longer adhere to current standards. To improve the reliability of international transmission of our findings, CPGs are created in compliance with the methodologies developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Part 2 of this PD guideline is the first CPG developed by our society that conforms to the GRADE approach. Methods Detailed processes were created in accordance with the Cochrane handbook and the GRADE approach developed by the GRADE working group. Results Clinical question (CQ)1: Is the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS inhibitors), such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), effective in PD patients? Recommendation: We suggest the usage of RAS inhibitors (ACEI and ARB) in PD patients (GRADE 2C). CQ2: Icodextrin or glucose solution: which is more useful as a dialysate among patients with PD? Recommendation: We suggest using icodextrin when managing body fluids in PD patients (GRADE 2C). CQ3: Is it better to apply or not apply mupirocin/gentamicin ointment to the exit site? Recommendation: We suggest not applying mupirocin/gentamicin ointment to the exit sites of PD patients (GRADE 2C). CQ4: Which surgical approach is more desirable when a PD catheter is placed, open surgery or laparoscopic surgery? No recommendation. CQ5: Which administration route of antibiotics is better in PD patients with peritonitis, intravenous or intraperitoneal? Recommendation: We suggest intraperitoneal administration of antibiotics in PD patients with peritonitis (GRADE 2C). Note: The National Insurance does not currently cover intraperitoneal administration. CQ6: Is peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis better as the first renal replacement therapy in diabetic patients? No recommendation. Conclusions In the future, we suggest that society members construct their own evidence to answer CQs not brought up in this guideline, and thereby show the achievements of Japan worldwide.

Abstract Background Icodextrin enhances peritoneal filtration for patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, clinically important outcomes have not yet been analyzed using authentic, objective statistical methods. The present systematic review aimed to determine the risks and benefits of icodextrin compared with a glucose-based solution with respect to clinically important and patient-centered outcomes. Methods We systematically investigated only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by adopting the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (2014) and searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases for eligible studies reported in the literature. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results We finally evaluated important outcomes in 13 RCTs. Icodextrin significantly decreased the number of reported episodes of uncontrolled fluid overload in four RCTs that involved 236 patients (relative risk [RR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.82; moderate certainty evidence). However, the inclusion of icodextrin for peritoneal ultrafiltration did not significantly differ in six RCTs involving 252 patients (mean difference [MD], 186.76 mL; 95% CI, − 47.08 to 420.59; low certainty evidence). Regarding other clinically important outcomes, all-cause mortality in 10 RCTs involving 1106 patients (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.71; low certainty evidence) and technical survival in five RCTs involving 470 patients (RR, 0.57; 95%CI, 0.29 to 1.12; low certainty evidence) were not significant. Urine volume in four RCTs involving 136 patients, residual renal function in five RCTs involving 181 patients and peritoneal function measured as the ratio of solute concentration in dialysate and plasma (D/P ratio) in two RCTs involving 105 patients were not specifically affected by icodextrin, and the results for adverse events were similar between icodextrin and glucose PD solutions. Conclusion Icodextrin could relieve uncontrolled fluid overload without adding risk. However, a significant effect on clinically relevant outcomes such as technical survival and overall patient survival was not suggested. More trials are required to increase the statistical power and to verify the value of icodextrin in clinical practice. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42018104360