DESIGN: This multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial involved 363 prevalent CAPD patients from 8 centers. The primary endpoint was peritonitis rate; secondary endpoints were technique failure and technical problems encountered. The duration of the evaluation was 1 year.
RESULTS: The risk of peritonitis on Carex varied between the centers. We found a significant treatment-center interaction effect (likelihood ratio test: p = 0.03). The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of peritonitis on Carex as compared with Ultra ranged from 0.4 to 7.2. In two centers, Carex was inferior to Ultra with regard to peritonitis; but, in five centers, the results were inconclusive. Equivalence was not demonstrated in any center. The overall rate of peritonitis in the Carex group was twice that in the Ultra group [IRR: 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.51 to 3.14]. Technique failure and technical problems were more common with the Carex system. Technique failure rate at 1 year was 44% in the Carex group and 22% in the Ultra group.
CONCLUSIONS: Equivalence between the Carex disconnect system and the Ultra disconnect system could not be demonstrated. The risk of peritonitis on Carex varied significantly between centers.
METHOD: A multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted. Adult patients receiving CAPD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to SSL or STS. The primary outcome was the rate of peritonitis after 1 year of follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 472 subjects were randomised (SSL, n = 233; STS, n = 239). One subject in each group was excluded from the analysis as they withdrew consent before the first dialysis dose. Four hundred and seventy subjects (SSL, n = 232; STS, n = 238) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority between two groups was established as no significant difference was found in peritonitis rate (incident rate ratio: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.65-1.28). No significant difference was detected in weekly Kt/V (p = 0.58) and creatinine clearance (p = 0.55). However, the average ultrafiltration volume was significantly lower in SSL, with a mean difference of 93 ml (p < 0.01). SSL also demonstrated a 2.57-times higher risk of device defect than STS (95% CI: 1.77-3.75).
CONCLUSION: SSL was non-inferior in peritonitis rate compared to plastic-free STS over 1 year in patients requiring CAPD. There was no difference in the delivered dialysis dose, but there was a higher rate of device defects with SSL.
METHODS: All DDKTRs between January 1, 2015, and December 29, 2020, were included and categorized into 2 groups: EPTS ≤20% and EPTS >20%. Cox regression was performed to evaluate the association of EPTS score and patient survival. The rate of postoperative complications, graft failure and patient survival were compared between 2 groups. Data were analyzed with SPSS v26 and R v4.0.4. The study complies with the Helsinki Congress and the Istanbul Declaration.
RESULTS: We included 159 DDKTRs, with a median follow-up of 25 months (range, 10-60 months). The mean age of those with EPTS ≤20% was 32.2 ± 3.4 years and those with EPTS >20% was 46.0 ± 6.7 years, and the median EPTS score were 16% (range, 12%-18%) and 38% (range, 27%-56.5%), respectively. EPTS score was associated with patient survival (hazard ratio, 1.031; 95% CI 1.010-1.052; P = .003), and the cutoff points of 30% and above were associated with worse survival. It showed good discrimination (C-index, 0.729; 95% CI 0.579-0.878; P = .003) and the optimal cutoff value was 38% (65.5% sensitivity, 68.8% specificity, 17.8% positive predictive value, and 95.8% negative predictive value). Both groups had similar rate of surgical complications (P = .191), graft failure (P = .503), and patient survival (P = .654), but those with EPTS >20% had higher incidence of urinary tract infection (9.3% vs 27.6%, P = .016).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in clinical outcomes using an EPTS cutoff point of 20% but worse patient survival if higher cutoff point was used.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on all KTRs ≥18 years of age at our center from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015, who were prescribed diltiazem as tacrolimus-sparing agent. Blood tacrolimus trough level (TacC0) and other relevant clinical data for 70 eligible KTRs were reviewed.
RESULTS: The dose of 1 mg tacrolimus resulted in a median TacC0 of 0.83 ± 0.52 ng/mL. With the introduction of a 90-mg/d dose diltiazem, there was a significant TacC0 increase to 1.39 ± 1.31 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P < .01). A further 90-mg increase in diltiazem to 180 mg/d resulted in a further increase of TacC0 to 1.66 ± 2.58 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus (P = .01). After this, despite a progressive increment of every 90-mg/d dose diltiazem to 270 mg/d and 360 mg/d, there was no further increment in TacC0 (1.44 ± 1.15 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus and 1.24 ± 0.94 ng/mL/mg tacrolimus, respectively [P < .01]). Addition of 180 mg/d diltiazem reduced the required tacrolimus dose to 4 mg/d, resulting in a cost-savings of USD 2045.92 per year (per patient) at our center. Adverse effects reported within 3 months of diltiazem introduction were bradycardia (1.4%) and postural hypotension (1.4%), which resolved after diltiazem dose reduction.
CONCLUSION: Coadministration of tacrolimus and diltiazem in KTRs appeared to be safe and resulted in a TacC0 increment until reaching a 180-mg/d total diltiazem dose, at which point it began to decrease. This approach will result in a marked savings in immunosuppression costs among KTRs in Malaysia.
METHODS: In this 24-month, open-label study, de novo kidney transplant recipients (KTxRs) were randomized (1:1) to receive EVR+rCNI or MPA+sCNI, along with induction therapy and corticosteroids.
RESULTS: Of the 2037 patients randomized in the TRANSFORM study, 293 were Asian (EVR+rCNI, N = 136; MPA+sCNI, N = 157). At month 24, EVR+rCNI was noninferior to MPA+sCNI for the binary endpoint of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)
METHODS: On two different occasions, a panel of 14 retinal specialists from Malaysia, together with an external expert, responded to a questionnaire on management of DME. A consensus was sought by voting after compiling, analyzing and discussion on first-phase replies on the round table discussion. A recommendation was deemed to have attained consensus when 12 out of the 14 panellists (85%) agreed with it.
RESULTS: The terms target response, adequate response, nonresponse, and inadequate response were developed when the DME patients' treatment responses were first characterized. The panelists reached agreement on a number of DME treatment-related issues, including the need to classify patients prior to treatment, first-line treatment options, the right time to switch between treatment modalities, and side effects associated with steroids. From this agreement, recommendations were derived and a treatment algorithm was created.
CONCLUSION: A detail and comprehensive treatment algorithm by Malaysia Retina Group for the Malaysian population provides guidance for treatment allocation of patients with DME.
METHODS: The ADR reports recorded between 2000 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed to identify hepatic ADR reports. The trend and characteristics of hepatic ADR cases were described. Multivariate disproportionality analysis of the causative agents was performed to generate signals of hepatic ADRs.
RESULTS: A total of 2090 hepatic ADRs (1.77% of all ADRs) were reported with mortality rate of 12.7% among cases with known clinical outcomes. The incidence of hepatic ADR reporting in Malaysia increased significantly over 18 years from 0.26 to 9.45 per million population (P