Search

Severe maternal morbidity and mortality continue to increase in the United States, largely owing to chronic and newly diagnosed medical comorbidities. Interconception care, or care and management of medical conditions between pregnancies, can improve chronic disease control before, during, and after pregnancy. It is a crucial and time-sensitive intervention that can decrease maternal morbidity and mortality and improve overall health. Despite these potential benefits, interconception care has not been well implemented by the primary care community. Furthermore, there is a lack of guidelines for optimizing preconception chronic disease, risk stratifying postpartum chronic diseases, and recommending general collaborative management principles for reproductive-age patients in the period between pregnancies. As a result, many primary care providers, especially those without obstetric training, are unclear about their specific role in interconception care and may be unsure of effective methods for collaborating with obstetric care providers. In particular, internal medicine physicians, the largest group of primary care physicians, may lack sufficient clinical exposure to medical conditions in the obstetric population during their residency training and may feel uncomfortable in caring for these patients in their subsequent practice. The objective of this article is to review concepts around interconception care, focusing specifically on preconception care for patients with chronic medical conditions (eg, chronic hypertension, chronic diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, venous thromboembolism, and obesity) and postpartum care for those with medically complicated pregnancies (eg, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes mellitus, excessive gestational weight gain, peripartum cardiomyopathy, and peripartum mood disorders). We also provide a pragmatic checklist for preconception and postpartum management.

BACKGROUND: Although Hispanics/Latinos in the United States are often considered a single ethnic group, they represent a heterogenous mixture of ancestries who can self-identify as any race defined by the U.S. Census. They have higher ESKD incidence compared with non-Hispanics, but little is known about the CKD incidence in this population. METHODS: We examined rates and risk factors of new-onset CKD using data from 8774 adults in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Incident CKD was defined as eGFR 140/90 mm Hg, higher glycated hemoglobin, lower baseline eGFR, and higher baseline urine albumin/creatinine ratio. CONCLUSIONS: CKD incidence varies by Hispanic/Latino heritage and this disparity may be in part attributed to differences in sociodemographic characteristics. Culturally tailored public heath interventions focusing on the prevention and control of risk factors might ameliorate the CKD burden in this population.

Objective To determine whether surge conditions were associated with increased mortality. Design Multicenter cohort study. Setting U.S. ICUs participating in STOP-COVID. Patients Consecutive adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating ICUs between March 4 and July 1, 2020. Interventions None Measurements and Main Results The main outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. To assess the association between admission to an ICU during a surge period and mortality, we used two different strategies: (1) an inverse probability weighted difference-in-differences model limited to appropriately matched surge and non-surge patients and (2) a meta-regression of 50 multivariable difference-in-differences models (each based on sets of randomly matched surge- and non-surge hospitals). In the first analysis, we considered a single surge period for the cohort (March 23 – May 6). In the second, each surge hospital had its own surge period (which was compared to the same time periods in matched non-surge hospitals). Our cohort consisted of 4342 ICU patients (average age 60.8 [sd 14.8], 63.5% men) in 53 U.S. hospitals. Of these, 13 hospitals encountered surge conditions. In analysis 1, the increase in mortality seen during surge was not statistically significant (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.30 [0.47-3.58], p = .6). In analysis 2, surge was associated with an increased odds of death (odds ratio 1.39 [95% CI, 1.34-1.43], p Conclusions Admission to an ICU with COVID-19 in a hospital that is experiencing surge conditions may be associated with an increased odds of death. Given the high incidence of COVID-19, such increases would translate into substantial excess mortality.

Although the number of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is higher in men than women, prior studies have provided limited sex-stratified clinical data. We evaluated sex-related differences in clinical outcomes among critically ill adults with COVID-19. Multicenter cohort study of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at 67 U.S. hospitals from March 4 to May 9, 2020. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate 28-day in-hospital mortality, severe acute kidney injury (AKI requiring kidney replacement therapy), and respiratory failure occurring within 14 days of intensive care unit admission. A total of 4407 patients were included (median age, 62 years; 2793 [63.4%] men; 1159 [26.3%] non-Hispanic White; 1220 [27.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 994 [22.6%] Hispanic). Compared with women, men were younger (median age, 61 vs 64 years, less likely to be non-Hispanic Black (684 [24.5%] vs 536 [33.2%]), and more likely to smoke (877 [31.4%] vs 422 [26.2%]). During median follow-up of 14 days, 1072 men (38.4%) and 553 women (34.3%) died. Severe AKI occurred in 590 men (21.8%), and 239 women (15.5%), while respiratory failure occurred in 2255 men (80.7%) and 1234 women (76.5%). After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity and clinical variables, compared with women, men had a higher risk of death (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.26–1.77), severe AKI (OR, 1.92; 95% CI 1.57–2.36), and respiratory failure (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11–1.80). In this multicenter cohort of critically ill adults with COVID-19, men were more likely to have adverse outcomes compared with women.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers (HCWs) contributes to personal and patient risk in contracting COVID-19. Reasons behind hesitancy and how best to improve vaccination rates in HCWs are not clear. Methods We adapted a survey using the Health Belief Model framework to evaluate HCW vaccine hesitancy and reasons for choosing for or against COVID-19 vaccination. The survey was sent to three large academic medical centers in the Chicagoland area between March and May 2021. Results We received 1974 completed responses with 85% of HCWs receiving or anticipating receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariable logistic regression found HCWs were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccination if they were Black (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.80), Republican (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.91), or allergic to any vaccine component (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.70) and more likely to receive if they believed people close to them thought it was important for them to receive the vaccine (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3-8). Conclusions A sizable number of HCWs remain vaccine hesitant one year into the COVID-19 pandemic. As HCWs are positively influenced by colleagues who believe COVID-19 vaccination, development of improved communication across HCW departments and roles may improve vaccination rates.

Rationale & Objective Acute kidney injury treated with kidney replacement therapy (AKI-KRT) occurs frequently in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We examined the clinical factors that determine kidney recovery in this population. Study Design Multicenter cohort study. Setting & Participants 4221 adults with COVID-19 not receiving kidney replacement therapy who were admitted to intensive care units at 68 US hospitals with COVID-19 from March 1 to June 22, 2020 (the “ICU cohort”). Among these, 876 developed AKI-KRT after admission to the ICU (the “AKI-KRT subcohort”). Exposure(s) The ICU cohort was analyzed using AKI severity as the exposure. For the AKI-KRT subcohort, exposures included demographics, comorbidities, initial mode of KRT, and markers of illness severity at the time of dialysis initiation. Outcome(s) The outcome for the ICU cohort was estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at hospital discharge. A three-level outcome including death, kidney nonrecovery, and kidney recovery at discharge, was analyzed for the AKI-KRT subcohort. Analytical approach The ICU cohort was characterized using descriptive analyses. The AKI-KRT subcohort was characterized with both descriptive analyses and multinomial logistic regression to assess factors associated with kidney nonrecovery while accounting for death. Results Among a total of 4221 patients in the ICU cohort, 2361 (56%) developed AKI, including 876 (21%) who received KRT. More severe AKI was associated with higher mortality. Among survivors, more severe AKI was associated with an increased rate of kidney nonrecovery and lower kidney function at discharge. Among the 876 patients with AKI-KRT, 588 (67%) died, 95 (11%) had kidney nonrecovery, and 193 (22%) had kidney recovery by the time of discharge. The odds of kidney nonrecovery was greater for lower estimated GFR with odds ratios (ORs) of 2.09 (95% CI, 1.09-4.04), 4.27 (95% CI, 1.99-9.17), and 8.69 (95% CI, 3.07-24.55) for CKD GFR categories 3, 4, and 5, respectively, compared to estimated GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Oliguria at the time of KRT initiation was also associated with nonrecovery (OR 2.10 [95% CI, 1.14-3.88] and 4.02 [95% CI, 1.72-9.39] for patients with 50-499 and, Critically ill patients with COVID-19 often develop acute kidney injury (AKI). This study of 4221 patients demonstrated that more severe AKI was associated with greater in-hospital mortality and poorer kidney function at hospital discharge. Among the 876 patients who required dialysis for AKI, almost two-thirds died. Among those who survived to discharge, about two-thirds recovered kidney function and were discharged without the need for dialysis. Lower baseline kidney function and reduced urine output were associated with non-recovery of kidney function. Identification of such predictors is important in assessing prognosis among these critically ill patients and has implications for clinical care of individuals critically ill with COVID-19.

Rationale & Objective Recent studies suggest that periodontal disease may be associated with incident chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, studies have focused on older populations, and US Hispanics/Latinos were not well represented. Study Design Observational cohort. Setting & Participants We analyzed data from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos who completed a baseline visit with a periodontal examination and a follow-up visit, and did not have CKD at baseline. Predictors Predictors included ≥30% of sites with clinical attachment loss ≥3 mm, ≥30% of sites with probing depth ≥4 mm, percentage of sites with bleeding on probing, and absence of functional dentition (, Graphical abstract

Background Hispanic persons living in the United States (U.S.) are at higher risk of infection and death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with non-Hispanic persons. Whether this disparity exists among critically ill patients with COVID-19 is unknown. Objective To evaluate ethnic disparities in mortality among critically ill adults with COVID-19 enrolled in the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID). Methods Multicenter cohort study of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICU) at 67 U.S. hospitals from March 4 to May 9, 2020. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate 28-day mortality across racial/ethnic groups. Results A total of 2153 patients were included (994 [46.2%] Hispanic and 1159 [53.8%] non-Hispanic White). The median (IQR) age was 62 (51–71) years (non-Hispanic White, 66 [57–74] years; Hispanic, 56 [46–67] years), and 1462 (67.9%) were men. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, Hispanic patients were younger; were less likely to have hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, or heart failure; and had longer duration of symptoms prior to ICU admission. During median (IQR) follow-up of 14 (7–24) days, 785 patients (36.5%) died. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, clinical characteristics, and hospital size, Hispanic patients had higher odds of death compared with non-Hispanic White patients (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.12–1.84). Conclusions Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, Hispanic patients were more likely to die than non-Hispanic White patients, even though they were younger and had lower comorbidity burden. This finding highlights the need to provide earlier access to care to Hispanic individuals with COVID-19, especially given our finding of longer duration of symptoms prior to ICU admission among Hispanic patients. In addition, there is a critical need to address ongoing disparities in post hospital discharge care for patients with COVID-19.

Variation in hospital mortality has been described for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the factors that explain these differences remain unclear.Our objective was to utilize a large, nationally representative dataset of critically ill adults with COVID-19 to determine which factors explain mortality variability.In this multicenter cohort study, we examined adults hospitalized in intensive care units with COVID-19 at 70 United States hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. We examined patient-level and hospital-level variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with interhospital variation. The median odds ratio (OR) was calculated to compare outcomes in higher- vs. lower-mortality hospitals. A gradient boosted machine algorithm was developed for individual-level mortality models.A total of 4,019 patients were included, 1537 (38%) of whom died by 28 days. Mortality varied considerably across hospitals (0-82%). After adjustment for patient- and hospital-level domains, interhospital variation was attenuated (OR decline from 2.06 [95% CI, 1.73-2.37] to 1.22 [95% CI, 1.00-1.38]), with the greatest changes occurring with adjustment for acute physiology, socioeconomic status, and strain. For individual patients, the relative contribution of each domain to mortality risk was: acute physiology (49%), demographics and comorbidities (20%), socioeconomic status (12%), strain (9%), hospital quality (8%), and treatments (3%).There is considerable interhospital variation in mortality for critically ill patients with COVID-19, which is mostly explained by hospital-level socioeconomic status, strain, and acute physiologic differences. Individual mortality is driven mostly by patient-level factors. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Summary: Many US states published crisis standards of care (CSC) guidelines for allocating scarce critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the performance of these guidelines in maximizing their population benefit has not been well tested. In 2,272 adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation drawn from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 (STOP-COVID) multicenter cohort, we test the following three approaches to CSC algorithms: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores grouped into ranges, SOFA score ranges plus comorbidities, and a hypothetical approach using raw SOFA scores not grouped into ranges. We find that area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves for all three algorithms demonstrate only modest discrimination for 28-day mortality. Adding comorbidity scoring modestly improves algorithm performance over SOFA scores alone. The algorithm incorporating comorbidities has modestly worse predictive performance for Black compared to white patients. CSC algorithms should be empirically examined to refine approaches to the allocation of scarce resources during pandemics and to avoid potential exacerbation of racial inequities.

Rationale & Objective Underlying kidney disease is an emerging risk factor for more severe COVID-19 illness. We examined the clinical courses of critically ill COVID-19 patients with and without pre-existing kidney disease and investigated the association between degree of underlying kidney disease and in-hospital outcomes. Study Design Retrospective cohort study Settings & Participants 4,264 critically ill COVID-19 patients (143 dialysis patients, 521 chronic kidney disease [CKD] patients, and 3,600 patients without CKD) admitted to ICUs at 68 hospitals in the United States. Predictor(s) Presence (versus absence) of pre-existing kidney disease Outcome(s) In-hospital mortality (primary); respiratory failure, shock, ventricular arrhythmia/ cardiac arrest, thromboembolic event, major bleed, and acute liver injury (secondary) Analytical Approach We used standardized differences to compare patient characteristics (values >0.10 indicate a meaningful difference between groups) and multivariable adjusted Fine and Gray survival models to examine outcome associations. Results Dialysis patients had a shorter time from symptom onset to ICU admission compared to other groups (median [quartile 1-quartile 3] days: 4 [2-9] for dialysis patients; 7 [3-10] for CKD patients; 7 [4-10] for patients without pre-existing kidney disease). More dialysis patients (25%) reported altered mental status than those with CKD (20%, standardized difference = 0.12) and no kidney disease (12%, standardized difference = 0.36). Half of dialysis and CKD patients died within 28-days of ICU admission versus 35% of patients without pre-existing kidney disease. Compared to patients without pre-existing kidney disease, dialysis patients had a higher risk of 28-day in-hospital death (adjusted HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.09, 1.81), while patients with CKD had an intermediate risk (adjusted HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.08, 1.44). Limitations Potential residual confounding Conclusions Findings highlight the high mortality of individuals with underlying kidney disease and severe COVID-19, underscoring the importance of identifying safe and effective COVID-19 therapies for this vulnerable population., Individuals with underlying kidney disease may be particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 illness, marked by multi-system organ failure, thrombosis, and a heightened inflammatory response. Among 4,264 critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to 68 intensive care units across the U.S., we found that both chronic kidney disease and dialysis patients had a ∼50% 28-day in-hospital mortality rate. Patients with underlying kidney disease had higher in-hospital mortality than patients without kidney disease, with patients on maintenance dialysis having the highest risk. As evidenced by differences in symptoms and clinical trajectories, patients with pre-existing kidney disease may have unique susceptibility to COVID-19-related complications which warrants additional study and special consideration in the pursuit and development of targeted therapies.

Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with COVID-19. This cohort study evaluated the incidence of venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examined the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival., Visual Abstract. Early Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with COVID-19. This cohort study evaluated the incidence of venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examined the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. Visual Abstract. Early Anticoagulation in COVID-19 Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with COVID-19. This cohort study evaluated the incidence of venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examined the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival., Background: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. Design: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. Setting: 67 hospitals in the United States. Participants: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. Measurements: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. Results: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). Limitation: Observational design. Conclusion: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation. Primary Funding Source: None.

BackgroundResidual kidney function (RKF) is thought to exert beneficial effects through clearance of uremic toxins. However, the level of native kidney function where clearance becomes negligible is not known.MethodsWe aimed to assess whether levels of nonurea solutes differed among patients with ‘clinically negligible’ RKF compared with those with no RKF. The hemodialysis study excluded patients with urinary urea clearance >1.5 mL/min, below which RKF was considered to be ‘clinically negligible’. We measured eight nonurea solutes from 1280 patients participating in this study and calculated the relative difference in solute levels among patients with and without RKF based on measured urinary urea clearance.ResultsThe mean age of the participants was 57 years and 57% were female. At baseline, 34% of the included participants had clinically negligible RKF (mean 0.7 ± 0.4 mL/min) and 66% had no RKF. Seven of the eight nonurea solute levels measured were significantly lower in patients with RKF than in those without RKF, ranging from −24% [95% confidence interval (CI) −31 to −16] for hippurate, −7% (−14 to −1) for trimethylamine-N-oxide and −4% (−6 to −1) for asymmetric dimethylarginine. The effect of RKF on plasma levels was comparable or more pronounced than that achieved with a 31% higher dialysis dose (spKt/Vurea 1.7 versus 1.3). Preserved RKF at 1-year follow-up was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death and first cardiovascular event.ConclusionsEven at very low levels, RKF is not ‘negligible’, as it continues to provide nonurea solute clearance. Management of patients with RKF should consider these differences.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy in women with ESKD undergoing dialysis is uncommon due to impaired fertility. Data on pregnancy in women on dialysis in the United States is scarce. METHODS: We evaluated a retrospective cohort of 47,555 women aged 15–44 years on dialysis between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2013 using data from the United States Renal Data System with Medicare as primary payer. We calculated pregnancy rates and identified factors associated with pregnancy. RESULTS: In 47,555 women on dialysis, 2352 pregnancies were identified. Pregnancy rate was 17.8 per thousand person years (PTPY) with the highest rate in women aged 20–24 (40.9 PTPY). In the adjusted time-to-event analysis, a higher likelihood of pregnancy was seen in Native American (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.36), Hispanic (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.73), and black (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.49) women than in white women. A higher rate of pregnancy was seen in women with ESKD due to malignancy (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.12), GN (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.58), hypertension (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.51), and secondary GN/vasculitis (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.37) than ESKD due to diabetes. A lower likelihood of pregnancy was seen among women on peritoneal dialysis than on hemodialysis (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The pregnancy rate is higher in women on dialysis than previous reports indicate. A higher likelihood of pregnancy was associated with race/ethnicity, ESKD cause, and dialysis modality.

Rationale & Objective Cardiovascular events are less common in women than men in general populations; however, studies in chronic kidney disease (CKD) are less conclusive. We evaluated sex-related differences in cardiovascular events and death in adults with CKD. Study Design Prospective cohort study. Setting & Participants 1,778 women and 2,161 men enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC). Exposure Sex (women vs men). Outcome Atherosclerotic composite outcome (myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease), incident heart failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. Analytical Approach Cox proportional hazards regression. Results During a median follow-up period of 9.6 years, we observed 698 atherosclerotic events (women, 264; men, 434), 762 heart failure events (women, 331; men, 431), 435 cardiovascular deaths (women, 163; men, 274), and 1,158 deaths from any cause (women, 449; men, 709). In analyses adjusted for sociodemographic, clinical, and metabolic parameters, women had a lower risk of atherosclerotic events (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]), heart failure (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.93]), cardiovascular death (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.42-0.72]), and death from any cause (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.69]) compared with men. These associations remained statistically significant after adjusting for cardiac and inflammation biomarkers. Limitations Assessment of sex hormones, which may play a role in cardiovascular risk, was not included. Conclusions In a large, diverse cohort of adults with CKD, compared with men, women had lower risks of cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and mortality from any cause. These differences were not explained by measured cardiovascular risk factors.

Widely regarded as safe and effective, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly used medications in the world today. However, a spate of observational studies suggest an association between PPI use and adverse events, including infection, bone fracture, and dementia. This review details evidence linking the use of PPI therapy to the development of kidney disease, including early case reports of acute interstitial nephritis and subsequent large observational studies of acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The majority of studies showed higher risk of kidney outcomes among persons prescribed PPI medications, with effect sizes that were slightly higher for AKI (∼2-3-fold) compared to CKD and ESRD (1.2-1.8-fold). Although observational pharmaco-epidemiology studies are limited by the possibility of residual confounding and confounding by indication, many of the described studies conducted rigorous sensitivity analyses aimed at minimizing these biases, including new-user design, comparison to similar agents (e.g., histamine2 receptor antagonists), and evaluation for a dose-response, with robust results. Given the widespread use of PPIs, even a small effect on kidney outcomes could result in large public health burden. Timely cessation of PPI therapy when there is no clear indication for use might reduce the population burden of kidney disease.

The association of residual kidney function (RKF) with improved outcomes in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients is now widely recognized. RKF provides substantial volume and solute clearance even after dialysis initiation. In particular, RKF provides clearance of non-urea solutes, many of which are potential uremic toxins and not effectively removed by conventional hemodialysis. The presence of RKF provides a distinct advantage to incident dialysis patients and is an opportunity for nephrologists to individualize dialysis treatments tailored to their patients' unique solute, volume, and quality of life needs. The benefits of RKF present the opportunity to personalize the management of uremia

Maintenance hemodialysis is typically prescribed thrice weekly irrespective of a patient's residual kidney function (RKF). We hypothesized that a less frequent schedule at hemodialysis therapy initiation is associated with greater preservation of RKF without compromising survival among patients with substantial RKF.A longitudinal cohort.23,645 patients who initiated maintenance hemodialysis therapy in a large dialysis organization in the United States (January 2007 to December 2010), had available RKF data during the first 91 days (or quarter) of dialysis, and survived the first year.Incremental (routine twice weekly for6 continuous weeks during the first 91 days upon transition to dialysis) versus conventional (thrice weekly) hemodialysis regimens during the same time.Changes in renal urea clearance and urine volume during 1 year after the first quarter and survival after the first year.Among 23,645 included patients, 51% had substantial renal urea clearance (≥3.0mL/min/1.73m(2)) at baseline. Compared with 8,068 patients with conventional hemodialysis regimens matched based on baseline renal urea clearance, urine volume, age, sex, diabetes, and central venous catheter use, 351 patients with incremental regimens exhibited 16% (95% CI, 5%-28%) and 15% (95% CI, 2%-30%) more preserved renal urea clearance and urine volume at the second quarter, respectively, which persisted across the following quarters. Incremental regimens showed higher mortality risk in patients with inadequate baseline renal urea clearance (≤3.0mL/min/1.73m(2); HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.07-2.44), but not in those with higher baseline renal urea clearance (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76-1.28). Results were similar in a subgroup defined by baseline urine volume of 600mL/d.Potential selection bias and wide CIs.Among incident hemodialysis patients with substantial RKF, incremental hemodialysis may be a safe treatment regimen and is associated with greater preservation of RKF, whereas higher mortality is observed after the first year of dialysis in those with the lowest RKF. Clinical trials are needed to examine the safety and effectiveness of twice-weekly hemodialysis.

Renal involvement of DM is collectively known as diabetic kidney disease (DKD). DKD is initially characterized by hyperfiltration in many patients which is eventually followed by a reduction in glomerular filtration rate and ultimately, progression to end stage kidney disease. Renal pathogenesis occurs as a result of aberrancies in various pathways including the hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammatory, genetic, and alternative pathways which are discussed in further detail in the chapter. While newer treatment modalities attempt to address various aberrations in these pathways, the mainstay of DKD management still focuses on renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibition, glycemic and blood pressure control.

Background Patients starting dialysis often have substantial residual kidney function. Incremental hemodialysis provides a hemodialysis prescription that supplements patients’ residual kidney function while maintaining total (residual + dialysis) urea clearance (standard Kt/Vurea) targets. We describe our experience with incremental hemodialysis in patients using NxStage System One for home hemodialysis. Case presentation From 2011 to 2015, we initiated 5 incident hemodialysis patients on an incremental home hemodialysis regimen. The biochemical parameters of all patients remained stable on the incremental hemodialysis regimen and they consistently achieved standard Kt/Vurea targets. Of the two patients with follow-up >6 months, residual kidney function was preserved for ≥2 years. Importantly, the patients were able to transition to home hemodialysis without automatically requiring 5 sessions per week at the outset and gradually increased the number of treatments and/or dialysate volume as the residual kidney function declined. Conclusions An incremental home hemodialysis regimen can be safely prescribed and may improve acceptability of home hemodialysis. Reducing hemodialysis frequency by even one treatment per week can reduce the number of fistula or graft cannulations or catheter connections by >100 per year, an important consideration for patient well-being, access longevity, and access-related infections. The incremental hemodialysis approach, supported by national guidelines, can be considered for all home hemodialysis patients with residual kidney function.

Mineral and bone disorders that precede kidney transplantation are exacerbated in the post-transplant setting by tertiary hyperparathyroidism and immunosuppressive regimens. Bone mineral density (BMD) decreases following transplantation, leading to increased fracture risk. The effect of bisphosphonates on fracture is unknown. The aim of this study was to update estimates of change in BMD and fracture rates in bisphosphonate-treated kidney transplant recipients through meta-analysis. Studies comparing bisphosphonate therapy to standard of care were included if follow-up duration was more than 6 months. We performed random-effects meta-analysis to determine the effect of bisphosphonates on lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD and fracture rates. Bisphosphonates improved femoral neck and lumbar spine BMD compared with controls (0.055 g/cm(2) , 95% CI 0.012-0.099 and 0.053 g/cm(2) , 95% CI 0.032-0.074, respectively) without adversely affecting serum creatinine or calcium. This corresponded to an unweighted improvement in BMD of 6.0% and 7.4%, respectively. There was no difference in fracture incidence in the two groups. Bisphosphonate therapy in kidney transplant recipients is associated with a statistically significant improvement in BMD at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. There was no difference in fracture incidence. Bisphosphonates did not adversely affect allograft dysfunction or serum calcium levels.

Diabetes is a worldwide epidemic that has led to a rise in diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Over the past two decades, there has been significant clarification of the various pathways implicated in the pathogenesis of DKD. Nonetheless, very little has changed in the way clinicians manage patients with this disorder. Indeed, treatment is primarily centered on controlling hyperglycemia and hypertension and inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system. The purpose of this review is to describe the current understanding of how the hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammatory, and alternative pathways are all entangled in pathogenesis of DKD and detail the various therapeutic targets that may one day play a role in quelling this epidemic.

Background Correctly assessing and managing volume status are critical elements of daily care for patients managed by nephrologists. However, intravascular volume is difficult to assess by physical examination alone. Methods We present vignettes illustrating the potential for using hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) to improve volume assessment in common clinical scenarios faced by the renal consultant in the hospital setting. These include patients with acute kidney injury and patients treated with hemodialysis. Results We used HCU to provide essential information about volume status which is otherwise not readily available. HCU allowed objective assessment of volume status, helping with clinical management of hospitalized patients and potentially avoiding harm. Conclusion HCU can complement physical examination for volume assessment in hospitalized patients with acute kidney injury or those on hemodialysis. Our report highlights the need for systematic research in this area.

The use of cooled dialysate temperatures first came about in the early 1980s as a way to curb the incidence of intradialytic hypotension (IDH). IDH was then, and it remains today, the most common complication affecting chronic hemodialysis patients. It decreases quality of life on dialysis and is an independent risk factor for mortality. Cooling dialysate was first employed as a technique to incite peripheral vasoconstriction on dialysis and in turn reduce the incidence of intradialytic hypotension. Although it has become a common practice amongst in-center hemodialysis units, cooled dialysate results in up to 70% of patients feeling cold while on dialysis and some even experience shivering. Over the years, various studies have been performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cooled dialysate in comparison to a standard, more thermoneutral dialysate temperature of 37 °C. Although these studies are limited by small sample size, they are promising in many aspects. They demonstrated that cooled dialysis is safe and equally efficacious as thermoneutral dialysis. Although patients report feeling cold on dialysis, they also report increased energy and an improvement in their overall health following cooled dialysis. They established that cooling dialysate temperatures improves hemodynamic tolerability during and after hemodialysis, even in patients prone to IDH, and does so without adversely affecting dialysis adequacy. Cooled dialysis also reduces the incidence of IDH and has a protective effect over major organs including the heart and brain. Finally, it is an inexpensive measure that decreases economic burden by reducing necessary nursing intervention for issues that arise on hemodialysis such as IDH. Before cooled dialysate becomes standard of care for patients on chronic hemodialysis, larger studies with longer follow-up periods will need to take place to confirm the encouraging outcomes mentioned here.