Safety, Effectiveness, and Manipulability of Peritoneal Dialysis Machines Made in China: A Randomized, Crossover, Multicenter Clinical Study / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

Background@#Automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) can cater to individual needs, provide treatment while asleep, take into account the adequacy of dialysis, and improve the quality of life. Currently, independent research and development of APD machines made in China are more conducive to patients. A randomized, multicenter, crossover study was conducted by comparing an APD machine made in China with an imported machine. The safety, effectiveness, and manipulability of the two machines were compared.@*Methods@#Two hundred and sixty patients who underwent peritoneal dialysis (PD) on a regular basis in 18 centers between August 2015 and February 2016 were included. The inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years and PD ≥30 days. The exclusion criteria were as follows: hemodialysis; exit site or tunnel infection; and peritonitis ≤30 days. The patients were randomly divided into Group A, who were first treated with a FM machine made in China, then changed to an imported machine; and Group B, who were treated using the reverse sequence. APD treatment was performed with 10 L/10 h and 5 cycles of exchange. After 72 h, the daily peritoneal Kt/V, the accuracy of the injection rate, accuracy of the injection temperature, safety, and manipulability of the machine were assessed. Noninferiority test was conducted between the two groups.@*Results@#The daily peritoneal Kt/V in the APD machine made in China and the imported APD machine were 0.17 (0.14, 0.25) and 0.16 (0.13, 0.23), respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups (Z = 0.15, P = 0.703). The lower limit of the daily Kt/V difference between the two groups was 0.0069, which was greater than the noninferiority value of -0.07 in this study. The accuracy of the injection rate and injection temperature was 89.7% and 91.5%, respectively, in the domestic APD machine, which were both slightly better than the accuracy rates of 84.0% and 86.8% in the imported APD machine (89.7% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.2466; 91.5% vs. 86.8%, P = 0.0954). Therefore, the APD machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. The fuselage of the imported APD machine was space-saving, while the APD machine made in China was superior with respect to body mobility, man-machine dialog operation, alarm control, and patient information recognition.@*Conclusions@#The FM machine made in China was not inferior to the imported APD machine. In addition, the FM machine made in China had better operability.@*Trial Registration@#Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02525497; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02525497&cntry=& state=&city=&dist=.

Efficacy and safety of Changfu peritoneal dialysis solution: a multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial / 中华医学杂志(英文版)

<p><b>BACKGROUND</b>A multi-center large scale study is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of domestic peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions. Some researchers believe that 6 L/d is enough for adequate dialysis, but there is no multi-center prospective study on Chinese population to confirm this. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of domestic PD solution (Changfu) and its difference between 6 L and 8 L dosage.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Adult PD patients who had taken PD therapy for at least one month were selected and divided into four groups according to two dialysis solution brands and two dialysis dosages, i.e., 6 L dose with Changfu dialysis solution, 6 L dose with Baxter dialysis solution, 8 L dose with Changfu dialysis solution, and 8 L dose with Baxter dialysis solution. After 48 weeks, the changes of primary and secondary efficacy indices were compared between different types and different dosages. We also analyzed the changes of safety indices.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Changes of Kt/V from baseline to 48 weeks between Changfu and Baxter showed no statistical differences; so did those of creatinine clearance rate (Ccr). Normalized protein catabolic rate (nPCR) from baseline to 48 weeks between Changfu and Baxter showed no statistical differences; so did those of net ultrafiltration volume (nUF) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Changes of nPCR from baseline to 48 weeks between 6 L and 8 L showed no statistical differences; so did those of nUF and eGFR. The decline of Kt/V from baseline to 48 weeks in 6 L group was more than that in 8 L group. Change of Ccr was similar. During the 48-week period, the mean Kt/V was above 1.7/w, and mean Ccr was above 50 L×1.73 m(-2)×w(-1). More adverse events were found in Changfu group before Changfu Corporation commenced technology optimization, and the statistical differences disappeared after that.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The domestic PD solution (Changfu) was proven to be as effective as Baxter dialysis solution. During 48-week period, a dosage of 6 L/d was enough for these patients to reach adequate PD. Clinical study promotes technological optimization, further helps to improve the safety indices of the medical products.</p>