Prevalence, clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the effects of COVID-19 on peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This study aimed to describe the impact of COVID-19 on the PD population. METHODS: A monocentric retrospective observational study was conducted on 146 consecutive PD patients followed from January 2020 to March 2022 at the University Hospital of Modena, Italy. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (18.4%) PD patients experienced 29 episodes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.16 episodes/patient-year. Median age of COVID-19 patients was 60.4 (interquartile range [IQR] 50.2-66.5) years. In unvaccinated patients (n. 9), COVID-19 was always symptomatic and manifested with fever (100%) and cough (77.7%). COVID-19 caused hospital admission of three (33.3%) patients and two (22.2%) died of septic shock. COVID-19 was symptomatic in 83.3% of vaccinated subjects (n.18) and manifested with fever (61.1%) and cough (55.6%). Hospital admission occurred in 27.8% of the subjects but all were discharged home. Median SARS-CoV-2 shedding was 32 and 26 days in the unvaccinated and vaccinated groups, respectively. At the end of the follow-up, COVID-19 triggered the shift from PD to HD in two subjects without affecting the residual renal function of the remaining patients. Overall, COVID-19 caused an excess death of 22.2%. COVID-19 vaccination refusal accounted for only 1.6% in this cohort of patients. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 incident rate was 0.16 episodes/patient-year in the PD population. About one-third of the patients were hospitalized for severe infection. Fatal outcome occurred in two (7.4%) unvaccinated patients. A low vaccination refusal rate was observed in this population.

Weekly Rapid Antigen Test Screening for COVID-19 in Patients on Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: COVID-19 is a concerning issue among in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients. To prevent COVID-19 diffusion in our HD facility, weekly rapid nasal antigen test screening was performed for all asymptomatic patients on chronic HD. This study aimed to assess the performance of weekly rapid antigen test in detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection among asymptomatic patients receiving HD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in HD patients who underwent rapid antigen test screening from December 2021 to March 2022. The diagnosis of COVID-19 with rapid antigen test was always confirmed by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). RESULTS: During the observational period, 1,748 rapid antigen tests were performed in 220 HD patients. Mean age was 68.4±14.6 years. Fifteen (8.5%) patients resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using rapid antigen tests. The diagnosis was subsequently confirmed in 14 (93.3%) patients by RT-PCR. During the same period, 12 (5.4%) symptomatic patients, regularly screened with weekly rapid antigen test, resulted positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection using RT-PCR. Overall, weekly rapid antigen test screening identified 14 out of 26 (53.8%) COVID-19 cases and showed a positive predictive value of 93%. CONCLUSION: Weekly antigen test screening of asymptomatic patients on chronic HD detected around half of the COVID-19 cases in our population.

Ethical challenges in managing unvaccinated patients receiving chronic in-centre haemodialysis.

Insufficient vaccine coverage and dominance of the more transmissible severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants are the leading causes of the continued spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. To curb the surge in infections, COVID-19 vaccination has been advocated as a priority measure, especially for frail populations and people at high risk of exposure. Patients on in-centre maintenance haemodialysis (HD) embody both conditions. They are at high risk of severe COVID-19 consequences due to their advanced age and weakened immune system and carry an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission within shared dialysis rooms and public vehicles. Vaccination of the entire HD population is therefore the most effective strategy to protect patients from the dire consequences of COVID-19. Unfortunately, a minority of patients still express COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The management of this group of patients, who have the full right to HD treatment, poses demanding problems from a patient safety perspective. The placement of unvaccinated patients within the dialysis room and the protection of all vaccinated patients are some of the most urgent problems the nephrologist faces during the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of these COVID-19-driven changes, an ethical reflection on the management of unvaccinated patients appears crucial to act responsibly and contribute to the health promotion of dialysis patients.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Screening in Patients on Hemodialysis.

Introduction: Patients receiving in-center hemodialysis are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. It is unclear if routine screening of asymptomatic hemodialysis patients is an effective strategy to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks within the dialysis unit. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-center hemodialysis patients who underwent bimonthly COVID-19 rapid antigen test screening from February 15th to December 26th, 2021. Nasal rapid antigen testing was performed in all asymptomatic patients. All rapid antigen-positive tests were confirmed by RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab. Besides universal rapid antigen screening, RT-PCR testing was conducted in all symptomatic patients and contacts of COVID-19 subjects. Results: Overall, 4079 rapid antigen tests were performed in 277 hemodialysis patients on chronic hemodialysis with a mean age of 68.4 ± 14.6 years. Thirty-eight (0.9%) rapid antigen tests resulted positive. Only five (13.8%) positive-rapid antigen tests were also positive by RT-PCR testing. During the same period, 219 patients regularly screened by rapid antigen tests bimonthly underwent 442 RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swabs for clinical reasons. RT-PCR testing yielded a positive result in 13 (5.9%) patients. The time elapsed between PCR and the negative-rapid antigen test was 7.7 ± 4.6 days (range 1.8-13.9 days). At the end of the follow-up, 6.4% of the population on in-center hemodialysis contracted COVID-19, and routine rapid antigen tests detected only 5 out of 18 (27.7%) COVID-19 cases. No outbreaks of COVID-19 were identified within the dialysis unit. Conclusion: Bimonthly rapid antigen screening led to the early diagnosis of COVID-19 in less than one-third of cases. The short incubation period of the new SARS-CoV-2 variants makes bimonthly test screening inadequate for an early diagnosis of COVID-19. More frequent tests are probably necessary to improve the utility of COVID-19 nasal rapid antigen test in patients on hemodialysis.

Reactogenicity of MRNA-1273 Vaccine in Patients on Haemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS mRNA-1273 vaccine (previously known as vaccine Moderna) has shown 94.1% efficacy at preventing COVID-19 illness in the general population. Vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) were usually mild or moderate in intensity and resolved within a few days. Nevertheless, the fear of developing AEs led some patients on haemodialysis to deny vaccination or additional booster doses. No studies have been conducted to evaluate the reactogenicity of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in dialysis patients. To inform public health and clinical practice, we investigated the safety of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in a cohort of patients on haemodialysis. METHOD We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-centre haemodialysis patients without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis who underwent mRNA-1273 vaccine from 1 March to 30 April 2021. mRNA-1273 vaccine was performed in all patients without signs of ongoing infection or COVID-19 who provided written consent from 24 March to 30 April 2021. AEs occurring after the first and the second doses were collected and classified as local or systemic. RESULTS Overall, 126 patients on chronic maintenance dialysis were vaccinated with two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. Mean age was 68 (IQR, 54.7–76) years and 53.6% of patients were aged ≥65 years (Table 1). AEs occurred in 57.9% and 61.9% of patients after the first dose and second dose, respectively. The most common AEs were injection-site pain (61.9%), erythema (4.8%), itching (4.8%), swelling (16.7%), axillary swelling/tenderness (2.4%), fever (17.5%) headache (7.9%), fatigue (23.8%), myalgia (17.5%), arthralgia (12.7%), dyspnoea (2.4%), nausea/vomiting (7.1%), diarrhoea (5.6%), shivers (4%) and vertigo (1.6%).Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of haemodialysis patients who underwent RNA-1273 vaccine administrationBasal characteristicsAll patients(n = 126) Age (year)68 (54.7–6) (range)19–92 ≥ 65 years71 (56.3) Males, n (%)71 (56.31) Ethnic origin, n. (%)  Caucasian110 (87.3) African15 (11.9) Hispanic1 (0.8)Etiology of ESRD, n. (%)  Nephrosclerosis54 (42.9) Glomerulonephritis26 (20.6) Diabetes14 (11.1) ADPKD4 (3.2) Nephrotoxic4 (3.2) Pyelonephritis4 (3.2) Interstitial3 (2.4) HIVAN2 (1.6) Others10 (7.9) NA5 (4)HD treatment schedule, n (%)  3 times per week115 (91.2) 2 times per week7 (5.5) 4 times per week4 (3.1)Infectious disease, n. (%)  HBV3 (2.3) HCV3 (2.3) HIV2 (1.5)Time elapsed from the first to the second dose of vaccine, day28 (28–28)Follow-up, day68 (66–70) ESRD, end-stage renal disease;HBV, hepatitis B virus;HCV, hepatitis C virus. The rates of local AEs were similar after the first and second doses (P = .8), whereas systemic AEs occurred more frequently after the second dose (P = .001). Fever (P = .03), fatigue (P = .02) and nausea/vomiting (P = .03) were significantly more frequent after the second dose of the vaccine (Figure 1). Analysis of the data detected statistically significant differences in duration of axillary swelling/tenderness (P = .07) and diarrhoea (P = .02) between the first and second. In both cases, these symptoms lasted longer after the second dose of the vaccine. There were no age-related differences in the rate of AEs between older (≥65 years) and younger participants (18–64 years). Lastly, we noted a lower rate of AEs in hemodialysis patients after the first dose (57.9% versus 84.2%) and second doses (61.9% versus 88.6%) compared to the general population.FIGURE 1: Number of patients who experienced AEs after the two doses. CONCLUSION RNA-1273 vaccine was associated with the development of transient AEs after the first (57.9%) and second doses (61.9%) in patients on haemodialysis. Systemic AEs were more common after the second dose than the first dose of vaccine. The duration of AEs lasted for a few days, without any apparent consequences. These data confirm the safety of the RNA-1273 vaccine in haemodialysis patients and support the promotion of COVID-19 vaccination in h sitant patients.

Covid-19 in Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis: A Case-Series

BACKGROUND AND AIMS A great amount of information has been divulged on the epidemiology and outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with ESRD. The majority of the studies have been conducted in patients on maintenance hemodialysis (HD) and kidney transplant recipients. Unfortunately, few studies focused on the outcome of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. Information regarding this subset of the population has been extrapolated from aggregated data including a higher percentage of HD patients. As a result, the impact of COVID-19 is indefinite in patients receiving PD. We conducted a study to better understand how patients on PD have been affected by COVID-19. METHOD We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 141 PD patients followed at the University Hospital of Modena, Italy from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed through nasopharyngeal swab RT–PCR testing. Duration of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) shedding measured the time elapsed from diagnosis of COVID-19 to one or two (if available) negative nasopharyngeal PCR tests. Median and interquartile range or mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables and percentage for categorical variables. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS During the pandemic, 18 out of 141 (12.7%) patients receiving PD dialysis contracted COVID-19. Median age was 60 (50.2–66.5) years with a predominance of males (72.2%) The percentage of patients on APD accounted for 33.3%. The infection was symptomatic in out of 18 (94.4%) patients. Fever (94.4%) and cough (55.6%) were the most common symptoms. Viral shedding, traced with nasopharyngeal swabs lasted 26 (14.5–3.5) days. Two patients were inactive on the waiting list for kidney transplantation for a mean of 43 ± 1.4 days. COVID-19 caused hospital admission of seven (38.9%) patients. During hospitalization two (11.1%) patients switched from PD to HD for ultrafiltration failure and inadequate solute clearance and two (11.1%) died for septic shock with multiorgan failure. In our cohort of patients, excess death due to COVID-19 was 22.2%. Half of the patients contracted the infection before the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. There were no statistically significant differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in terms of symptoms, viral shedding and hospital admission or (Table 1). We underline that COVID-19 was fatal only in two unvaccinated patients.Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients on PD with COVID-19VariablesAllpatientsUnvaccinated patientsVaccinated patientsP-value(n. 18)(n. 9)(n. 9)Age, years60 (50.2–66.5)54 (52–65)62 (39–73)0.96Male, n. (%)13 (72.2)8 (88.8)5 (55.5)0.29Dialysis vintage, years0.9 (0.7–2.4)1.2 (0.5–2.9)0.94 (0.7–2)0.85CAPD, n. (%)6 (33.3)2 (33.3)4 (44.4)0.6Immunosuppressive therapy6 (33.3)1 (16.7)5 (55.5)0.13Etiology of ESRD0.59 Hypertensive nephropathy6 (33.3)4 (44.4)2 (22.2) Diabetic nephropathy3 (16.7)2 (22.2)1 (11.1) IgA nephropathy2 (11.1)1 (11.1)1 (11.1) Lupus nephritis2 (11.1)0 (0)2 (22.2) Others5 (27.8)2 (22.2)3 (33.3)Comorbidities  Diabetes6 (33.3)3 (33.3)3 (33.3)1  CVD7 (38.9)4 (44.4)3 (33.3)1 Obesity5 (27.8)2 (22.2)3 (33.3)1  Cancer3 (16.7)2 (22.2)1 (11.1)1Symptoms  Cough10 (55.6)7 (77.7)3 (33.3)0.15  Fever17(94.4)9 (100)8 (88.8)1  Dyspnea6 (33.3)3 (33.3)3 (33.3)1Asymptomatic, n. (%)1 (5.6)0 (0)1 (11.1)1Viral shedding, day26 (14.5–33.5)26 (15–35)27.5 (11.5–33)0.51Switch to HD2 (11.1)1 (11.1)1 (11.1)1Hospitalization, n. (%)7 (38.9)3 (33.3)4 (44.4)1Death, n. (%)2 (11.1)2 (22.2)0 (0)0.47 CONCLUSION This study reports the monocentric experience of a large PD center during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 was symptomatic in the majority of patients and led to hospitalization of about 40% of the patients. The rate of symptoms, viral shedding and hospital admission was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Two unvaccin ted patients died for the severe consequence of COVID-19.

Which criteria should we use to end isolation in hemodialysis patients with COVID-19?

Safe and timely discontinuation of quarantine of in-center hemodialysis (HD) patients with a previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a challenging issue for the nephrological community because current guidelines for ending isolation do not mention dialysis patients. To prevent potentially fatal outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a cautionary approach has been adopted by most dialysis units. The criteria for ending the isolation in the HD population generally coincide with those recommended for immunocompromised people. Thus, a test-based strategy relying on two consecutive negative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) nasopharyngeal swabs has been adopted to terminate quarantine. This strategy has the disadvantage of prolonging isolation as RT-PCR positivity does not equate to SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Consequentially, prolonged positivity of SARS-CoV-2 results in excessive workload for the HD staff who must face an increasing number of COVID-19 patients requiring isolation. This condition leads also to serious implications for the patients and their households including work productivity loss, postponement of health-care appointments and an increased risk of COVID-19 reinfection. To counteract this problem, other diagnostic tests should be used to provide the best care to HD patients. Recent results seem to encourage the use of RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values and rapid antigen tests given their better correlation with cell culture for SARS-CoV-2 than RT-PCR testing. Here, we provide an overview of the current scientific evidence on the tests used to verify the infectiousness of the virus in order to stimulate the nephrological community to adopt a streamlined and pragmatic procedure to end isolation in COVID-19 patients on HD.

Reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccine in hemodialysis patients: a single-center retrospective study.

Introduction: Some hemodialysis patients are reluctant to undergo COVID-19 vaccination for the fear of developing adverse events (AEs). The aim of this study was to verify the safety of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in hemodialysis patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of in-center hemodialysis patients who underwent mRNA-1273 vaccine from March 1st to April 30th, 2021. All AEs occurring after the first and the second doses were collected and classified as local or systemic. Results: Overall, 126 patients on chronic maintenance dialysis without a prior COVID-19 diagnosis were vaccinated with two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine. Mean age was 68 (IQR, 54,7-76) years and 53.6% of patients were aged ≥65 years. During the observational period of 68 (IQR, 66-70) days, AEs occurred in 57.9% and 61.9% of patients after the first dose and second dose, respectively. The most common AEs were: injection-site pain (61.9%), erythema (4.8%), itching (4.8%), swelling (16.7%), axillary swelling/tenderness (2.4%), fever (17.5%) headache (7.9%), fatigue (23.8%), myalgia (17.5%), arthralgia (12.7%), dyspnoea (2.4%), nausea/vomiting (7.1%), diarrhoea (5.6%), shivers (4%) and vertigo (1.6%). The rates of local AEs were similar after the first and second doses (P=0.8), whereas systemic AEs occurred more frequently after the second dose (P=0.001). Fever (P=0.03), fatigue (P=0.02) and nausea/vomiting (P=0.03) were significantly more frequent after the second dose of the vaccine. There were no age-related differences in the rate of AEs. Overall, vaccine-related AEs in hemodialysis patients seem to be lower than in the general population. Conclusion: The RNA-1273 vaccine was associated with the development of transient AEs after the first and second doses in patients on chronic maintenance hemodialysis. They were mostly local, whereas systemic AEs were more prevalent after the second dose. Overall, all AEs lasted for a few days, without any apparent sequelae.

Erratum: SARS-CoV-2 infection in dialysis patients in northern Italy: a single-centre experience.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa084.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa084.].

The frail world of haemodialysis patients in the COVID-19 pandemic era: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing in-centre haemodialysis (HD) are particularly exposed to the dire consequences of COVID-19. The present systematic scoping review aims to identify the extent, range, and nature of articles related to COVID-19 and maintenance HD: it reports specifically the prevalence of the COVID-19 pandemic in the HD population, implementation of strategies for the prevention, mitigation and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic in HD centres, demographic and clinical characteristics, and outcomes of the pediatric and adult HD patients. METHODS: A multi-step systematic search of the literature in Pubmed, Scopus, Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science, published between December 1, 2019, and January 30, 2021 was performed. Two authors separately screened the titles and abstracts of the documents and ruled out irrelevant articles. A report of the papers that met inclusion criteria was performed; then, a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the included articles and a narrative synthesis of the results were performed. RESULTS: The review process ended with the inclusion of 145 articles. Most of them were based on single-centre experiences, which spontaneously developed best practices. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries (69.7%) and a part of them (9.6%) were not in English. Prevalence of COVID-19 among dialysis patients accounted for 0%-37.6%. Preventive measures were reported in 54% of the included articles, with particular emphasis on education, triage, hygiene, and containment measures. Patients experienced a heterogeneous spectrum of symptoms that led 35%-88.2% of them to hospital admission. Median and mean hospital length of stay ranged from 8 to 28.5 and 16.2 to 22 days, respectively. Admission to intensive care units varied widely across studies (from 2.6% to 70.5%) and was associated with high mortality (42.8%-100%). Overall, prognosis was poor in 0%-47% of the hospitalized patients. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic scoping review provides an overview of the current knowledge on the impact of COVID-19 on the frail world of HD patients. Furthermore, it may help to implement the existing strategies of COVID-19 prevention and provide a list of unmet needs (safe transport, testing, shelter). Finally, it may be a stimulus for performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses which will form the basis for evidence-based guidelines.

One-year persistence of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in dialysis patients recovered from COVID-19.

The immunological mechanisms that modulate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection remain elusive. Little is known on the magnitude and the durability of antibody response against COVID-19. There is consensus that patients with immune dysfunction, such as dialysis patients, may be unable to mount a robust and durable humoral immunity after infections. Recent studies showed that dialysis patients seroconverted after COVID-19, but data on the durability of the immune response are missing. We reported the data of a durable anti-spike protein seroconversion after natural SARS-CoV-2 infection in three patients on hemodialysis with a mean age of 67.2 ± 13.8 years. A mean antibody titer of 212.6 ± 174.9 UA/ml (Liaison®, DiaSorin) was found after one year (range, 366-374 days) from the diagnosis of COVID-19. In conclusion, this case series provided evidence that patients receiving hemodialysis who recovered from severe COVID-19 were able to mount a long-lasting immune response against SARS-CoV-2. Although the protective capacity of this long-term immunity remains to be determined, these patients did not report signs of reinfection after recovery from COVID-19.

Twenty-four-hour serum creatinine variation is associated with poor outcome in the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of within-day sCr variation serum creatinine variation is unknown in the setting of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the prognostic significance of 24-hour serum creatinine variation in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A monocentric retrospective analysis was conducted in COVID-19 patients not admitted to the intensive care unit. Three groups were subdivided based on 24 hours serum creatinine variation from admission. In the stable kidney function group, 24-hour serum creatinine variation ranged from +0.05 to -0.05 mg/dL; in the decreased kidney function group, 24-hour serum creatinine variation was >0.05 mg/dL; in the improved kidney function group, 24-hour serum creatinine variation was <-0.05 mg/dL. RESULTS: The study population included 224 patients with a median age of 66.5 years and a predominance of males (72.3%). Within 24 hours of admission, renal function remained stable in 37.1% of the subjects, whereas it displayed improved and deteriorated patterns in 45.5% and 17.4%, respectively. Patients with decreased kidney function were older and had more severe COVID-19 symptoms than patients with stable or improved kidney function. About half of patients with decreased kidney function developed an episode of acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization. Decreased kidney function was significantly associated with AKI during hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-10.8; p < 0.001) and was an independent risk factor for 30-day in-hospital mortality (HR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.1-28; p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with decreased kidney function within 24 hours of admission were at high risk of AKI and 30-day in-hospital mortality.

Incidence, risk factors and outcome of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a severe complication of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This study aims to evaluate incidence, risk factors and case-fatality rate of AKI in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We reviewed the health medical records of 307 consecutive patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at the University Hospital of Modena, Italy. RESULTS: AKI was diagnosed in 69 out of 307 (22.4%) COVID-19 patients. Stages 1, 2, or 3 AKI accounted for 57.9%, 24.6% and 17.3%, respectively. AKI patients had a mean age of 74.7 ± 9.9 years. These patients showed higher serum levels of the main markers of inflammation and higher rate of severe pneumonia than non-AKI patients. Kidney injury was associated with a higher rate of urinary abnormalities including proteinuria (0.44 ± 0.85 vs 0.18 ± 0.29 mg/mg; P = < 0.0001) and microscopic hematuria (P = 0.032) compared to non-AKI patients. Hemodialysis was performed in 7.2% of the subjects and 33.3% of the survivors did not recover kidney function after AKI. Risk factors for kidney injury were age, male sex, CKD and higher non-renal SOFA score. Patients with AKI had a mortality rate of 56.5%. Adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that COVID-19-associated AKI was independently associated with in-hospital death (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.82; CI 95%, 1.36-17.08) compared to non-AKI patients. CONCLUSION: AKI was a common and harmful consequence of COVID-19. It manifested with urinary abnormalities (proteinuria, microscopic hematuria) and conferred an increased risk for death. Given the well-known short-term sequelae of AKI, prevention of kidney injury is imperative in this vulnerable cohort of patients.

Acid base disorders in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Acid-base derangement has been poorly described in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Considering the high prevalence of pneumonia and kidneys injury in COVID-19, frequent acid-base alterations are expected in patients admitted with SARS-Cov-2 infection. The study aimed to assess the prevalence of acid-base disorders in symptomatic patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: The retrospective study enrolled COVID-19 patients hospitalized at the University Hospital of Modena from 4 March to 20 June 2020. Baseline arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis was collected in 211 patients. In subjects with multiple ABG analysis, we selected only the first measurement. A pH of less than 7.37 was categorized as acidemia and a pH of more than 7.43 was categorized as alkalemia. RESULTS: ABG analyses revealed a low arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PO2, 70.2 ± 25.1 mmHg), oxygen saturation (SO2, 92%) and a mild reduction of PO2/FiO2 ratio (231 ± 129). Acid-base alterations were found in 79.7% of the patient. Metabolic alkalosis (33.6%) was the main alteration followed by respiratory alkalosis (30.3%), combined alkalosis (9.4%), respiratory acidosis (3.3%), metabolic acidosis (2.8%) and other compensated acid-base disturbances (3.6%). All six patients with metabolic acidosis died at the end of the follow-up. CONCLUSION: Variations of pH occurred in the majority (79.7%) of patients admitted with COVID-19. The patients experienced all the type of acid-base disorders, notably metabolic and respiratory alkalosis were the most common alterations in this group of patients.

Hypokalemia in Patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 experience multiple clinical conditions that may cause electrolyte imbalances. Hypokalemia is a concerning electrolyte disorder closely associated with severe complications. This study aimed to estimate prevalence, risk factors and outcome of hypokalemia in a cohort of patients with confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 290 non-ICU admitted patients with COVID-19 at the tertiary teaching hospital of Modena, Italy, from February 16 to April 14, 2020. RESULTS: Hypokalemia was detected in 119 out of 290 patients (41%) during hospitalization. Mean serum potassium was 3.1 ± 0.1 meq/L. The majority of patients (90.7%) patients experienced only a mild decrease in serum potassium level (3-3.4 mEq/L). Hypokalemia was associated with hypocalcemia, which was detected in 50% of subjects. Urine potassium-to-creatinine ratio, measured in a small number of patients (n = 45; 36.1%), revealed an increase of urinary potassium excretion in most cases (95.5%). Risk factors for hypokalemia were female sex (odds ratio (OR) 2.44; 95% CI 1.36-4.37; P 0.003) and diuretic therapy (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.08-3.48; P 0.027). Hypokalemia, adjusted for sex, age and SOFA score, was not associated with ICU transfer (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.228-1.212; P = 0.131), in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.170-1.324; P = 0.154) and composite outcome of ICU transfer or in-hospital mortality (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.222-1.047; P = 0.065) in our cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hypokalemia was a frequent disorder in subjects with COVID-19. Female sex and diuretic therapy were identified as risk factors for low serum potassium levels. Hypokalemia was unrelated to ICU transfer and death in this cohort of patients.

Long-term effects of COVID-19 in a patient on maintenance dialysis.

Coronavirus infectious disease (COVID-19) is a novel respiratory infection highly associated with severe complications in elderly subjects affected by cardiovascular disease. Patients on maintenance dialysis are exceptionally vulnerable because most of them are old and have multiple comorbidities. We report the complex clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a patient on maintenance dialysis who presented with fever and lung edema. After 41 days from the primary infection, the clinically recovered patient experienced symptomatic reactivation of SARS-COV-2 infection documented by positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result on nasal/oropharyngeal swab along with immunoglobulin M seroconversion. The recurrence of PCR positivity forced us to perform hemodialysis in a separate isolation room for a prolonged period of time. Close monitoring of previously infected patients and restructuring of dialysis facilities are necessary to avoid new outbreaks of this concerning disease.

Peritoneal dialysis in the time of coronavirus disease 2019.

In the current setting of global containment, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home haemodialysis are the best modalities of renal replacement therapy (RRT) to reduce the rate of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Considering the shorter and easier training programme of PD compared to home haemodialysis, PD appears a practical solution for patients with end-stage renal disease to reduce the risk of hospital-acquired infection. PD offers the advantage of minimizing the risk of viral transmission through interpersonal contact that commonly occurs during the haemodialysis session and while travelling from home to the haemodialysis facility using public transport services. To overcome barriers to health care access due to the containment measures for this emerging disease, telemedicine is a useful and reliable tool for delivering health care without exposing patients to the risk of contact. However, novel issues including handling of potentially infected dialysate, caregivers' infectious risk and adequacy of PD in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome remain to be clarified. In conclusion, PD should be preferred to the other modalities of RRT during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak because it can be a solution to cope with the increased number of infected patients worldwide.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in dialysis patients in northern Italy: a single-centre experience.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients are considered at high risk for COVID-19 and the infection can easily spread in dialysis units. METHODS: We conducted an observational single-centre cohort study to describe clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes of dialysis patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We tested patients who presented symptoms or had contact with a confirmed case. We enrolled 15 patients positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: We tested 37 of 306 dialysis patients. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were older (mean age 75.96 ± 11.09 years) and all had comorbidities. At presentation, most had interstitial infiltrates on chest X-ray, three-quarters had leucopenia and none had respiratory insufficiency. During follow-up, there was an increase in serum C-reactive protein and interleukin-6. Eighty percent of patients received supplemental oxygen; none received non-invasive ventilation, one was intubated. Most patients (80%) were treated with oral hydroxychloroquine for a median time of 6.5 days [interquartile range (IQR) 5-14.5] and 40% received azithromycin; two patients received a short course of antivirals and one received a single dose of tocilizumab. Only two patients did not require hospitalization. Of the nine survivors, eight still tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 a median of 19 days (IQR 9.25-23) after diagnosis. Six patients died (case fatality rate 40%) a median of 5.5 days (IQR 1.75-9.75) after diagnosis. The main reported cause of death was respiratory failure related to COVID-19 (five patients). CONCLUSIONS: We report a single-centre experience of SARS-CoV-2 infection in dialysis patients. The disease showed a high case fatality rate and most patients required hospitalization. Survivors show prolonged viral shedding.