Search

Background: Inconsistent study results and contradictory recommendations from health authorities regarding the use of apixaban in patients on hemodialysis have generated considerable uncertainty among clinicians, making investigations of appropriate dosing an unmet need. Methods: We analyzed pre-dialysis apixaban drug levels from a tertiary care dialysis unit, comparing 2.5 mg once versus twice daily dosing. We applied mixed-effects models including dialysis modality, adjusted standard Kt/V, ultrafiltration, and dialyzer characteristics. We included an exploratory analysis of bleeding events and compared the drug levels of our dialysis patients to those from non-CKD reference populations taking the standard dose of 5 mg twice daily. Results: We analyzed 143 drug levels from 24 patients. Mean (SD) age at first drug level measurement was 64.7 (15.9) years (50 % female), median (IQR) follow-up was 12.5 (5.5 – 21) months. For the apixaban 2.5 mg once and twice daily groups, median (IQR) drug levels were 54.4 (< 40 – 72.1) and 71.3 (48.8 – 104.1) ng/mL respectively (P < 0.001). Levels were below the detection limit in 30 % (with 2.5 mg once daily) and 14 % (with 2.5 mg twice daily) respectively. Only dosing group (twice versus once daily) was independently associated with higher drug levels (P = 0.002). Follow-up did not suggest accumulation. The 95th percentile of drug levels did not exceed those of non-CKD populations taking 5 mg twice daily. Median (IQR) drug levels before a bleeding (8 episodes) were higher than those without a subsequent bleeding: 111.6 (83.1 – 129.3) versus 54.8 (< 40 – 77.1) ng/mL (P < 0.001). Concomitant antiplatelet therapy was used in 86% of those with bleeding events versus 6% without bleeding events (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Drug monitoring may be a contributory tool to increase patient safety. Despite non-existing target ranges, drug levels on both edges of the spectrum (e.g. below detectability or beyond the 95th percentiles of reference populations) may improve decision-making in highly individualized risk-benefit analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute pancreatitis is an infrequent but challenging cause of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Presentation is often indistinguishable from infectious peritonitis, interpretation of pancreatic enzymes is not straight-forward, and multiple etiologies need to be considered. Case Presentation: A 74-year-old PD patient presented with cloudy dialysate and subtle symptoms of malaise and abdominal pain. WBC was 26,000/µL, CRP was 250 mg/L, and dialysis effluent contained 1,047 leucocytes/μL (90% polymorphs). Infectious peritonitis was presumed, and antibiotic treatment started. However, dialysate cultures remained negative, effluent leucocyte count remained high, and clinical condition deteriorated. Abdominal ultrasound was unremarkable (pancreas not visible). Acute pancreatitis was diagnosed by elevated lipase level (serum: 628 U/L, dialysis fluid: 15 U/L) and CT scan. Disentangling etiological factors was challenging. The patient had gallstones, consumed alcoholic beverages, was recently on doxycycline and dialyzed with icodextrin. In addition, PD treatment itself may have been a contributory factor. Antibiotic therapy was stopped, and PD was temporarily suspended. Systemic and effluent markers of inflammation took 4 weeks to normalize. The patient did not regain his usual state of health until several weeks after discharge. Follow-up CT scan showed considerable pancreatic sequelae. Conclusion: Acute pancreatitis is an important cause of PD peritonitis. Negative dialysate cultures and unsatisfactory clinical response should trigger evaluation for acute pancreatitis and its multiple potential causes, including PD treatment itself. Serum lipase levels >3 times ULN and elevated dialysis fluid lipase can be expected. Timely performance of imaging is advisable. Prognosis can be poor, and close monitoring is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]