ABSTRACT
Resumen Introducción: Las personas con diálisis de mantenimiento se consideran una población en alto riesgo de infección por SARS-CoV-2, complicaciones y muerte. La periodicidad de la diálisis, la organización y la demanda en las unidades de diálisis y las limitaciones de alfabetización en salud poblacional limitan el cumplimiento del aislamiento y el distanciamiento social. Objetivo: Desarrollar, mediante un consenso de expertos, recomendaciones informadas en evidencia para la prevención, el diagnóstico y el manejo de la infección por SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una revisión rápida de literatura en Pubmed, Embase y sociedades científicas. La calidad de evidencia fue evaluada según el tipo de estudio incluido. El acuerdo se definió para cada recomendación con umbral de al menos 70% de aprobación. La fuerza de las recomendaciones fue graduada como fuerte o débil. Resultados: El colectivo fue consultado entre el 17 y 19 de mayo de 2020. Se obtuvo respuesta de 44 expertos clínicos que declararon conflicto de interés previo a la consulta. El acuerdo de las recomendaciones estuvo entre 70,5 y 100%. Se presentan las recomendaciones de un colectivo experto para la prevención, el diagnóstico y el manejo de infección por SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica. Conclusión: Debido a la reciente aparición de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 y las incertidumbres respecto a la prevención, el diagnóstico y el manejo, las recomendaciones presentadas se conciben como un estándar colombiano que permita garantizar un cuidado centrado en las personas con enfermedad renal crónica y la protección de los profesionales de la salud.
Abstract Introduction: People with chronic dialysis are considered a population at high risk of SARS CoV2 infection and its derived complications and death. The need to go to strict dialysis schedules, the high demand in the kidney facilities and the difficulties derived from the time and space organization in the rooms in the face to the pandemic added to the difficult learning, teaching and adapting new protocols manifest the needed of standard recommendation according to this problem in people who couldn't have an ideal isolation. Objective: Develop through an expert consensus, evidence-informed recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection in patients with chronic kidney disease on Dialysis. Materials and methods: We carried out a quick literature review, PubMed, Embase and scientific societies were consulted. The quality of the evidence was considered according to the type of study included. The agreement threshold defined for each recommendation was > 70% approval among experts. The strength of the recommendations was rated as strong or weak. Results: Between May 17 and 19, 2020, was conformed a team of 44 clinical experts who declared their interest conflict prior to the consultation. The agreement of the recommendations was between 70.5% and 100%. The recommendations were separated in prevention, early identification, and diagnostic, isolation in hemodialysis facilities and peritoneal dialysis, and team protection. Ethical considerations also were included. Conclusion: Due to the recent appearance of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the uncertainties regarding prevention, diagnosis and management, the recommendations presented are conceived as a Colombian standard that allows guaranteeing focused care for people with chronic kidney disease and the protection of health team.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , COVID-19 , Patients , Renal Dialysis , Colombia , DiagnosisABSTRACT
está disponible en el texto completo
The exponential increase in the request for laboratory tests of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D or [25 (OH) D has ignited the alarms and generated a strong call for attention, since it may reflect deficiencies in the standardization of clinical practice and in the use non-systematic scientific evidence for decision-making in real life, which allows to analyze the indications of the test, its frequency, interpretation and even to assess the impact for health systems, especially when contrasted with the minimum or almost. No effects of the strategy of screening or supplying indiscriminately to the general population, without considering a comprehensive clinical assessment of risks and needs of people. From a purely public health impact point of view, the consequence of massive and unspecified requests is affecting most of the health systems and institutions at the global level. The primary studies that determined average population intake values have been widely used in the formulation of recommendations in Clinical Practice Guidelines, but unfortunately misinterpreted as cut points to diagnose disease and allow the exaggerated prescription of nutritional substitution. The coefficient of variation in routine tests to measure blood levels of 25 (OH) D is high (28%), decreasing the overall accuracy of the test and simultaneously, increasing both the falsely high and falsely low values. The most recent scientific evidence analyzes and seriously questions the usefulness and the real effect of the massive and indiscriminate practice of prescribing vitamin D without an exhaustive risk analysis. The available evidence is insufficient to recommend a general substitution of vitamin D to prevent fractures, falls, changes in bone mineral density, incidence of cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular disease, neoplasms and also to modify the growth curve of mothers' children. They received vitamin D as a substitute during pregnancy. The recommendations presented in the document are based on the critical analysis of current evidence and the principles of good clinical practice and invite to consider a rational use of 25 (OH) D tests in the context of a clinical practice focused on people and a comprehensive assessment of needs and risks. The principles of good practice suggest that clinicians may be able to justify that the results of the 25 (OH) D test strongly influence and define clinical practice and modify the outcomes that interest people and impact their health and wellness. Currently there is no clarity on how to interpret the results, and the relationship between symptoms and 25 (OH) D levels, which may not be consistent with the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency reported. For this reason, it is suggested to review the rationale of the request for tests for systematic monitoring of levels of 25 (OH) D or in all cases where substitution is performed. Consider the use of 25 (OH) D tests within the comprehensive evaluation of people with suspicion or confirmation of the following conditions: rickets, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, hyper or hypoparathyroidism, malabsorption syndromes, sarcopenia, metabolic bone disease.