Phosphate levels in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, pre-dilution haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: post hoc analysis of a multicentre, randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether convective therapies allow better control of serum phosphate (P) is still undefined, and no data are available concerning on-line haemofiltration (HF). The objectives of the study are to evaluate the effect of convective treatments (CTs) on P levels in comparison with low-flux haemodialysis (HD) and to evaluate the correlates of serum phosphate in a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: This analysis was performed in the database of a multicentre, open label and randomized controlled study in which 146 chronic HD patients from 27 Italian centres were randomly assigned to HD (70 patients) or CTs: on-line pre-dilution HF (36 patients) or on-line pre-dilution haemodiafiltration (40 patients). RESULTS: CTs did not affect P (P = 0.526), calcium (Ca) (P = 0.849) and parathyroid hormone levels (P = 0.622). P levels were associated with the use of phosphate binders including aluminium-based phosphate binders (P < 0.001) and sevelamer (P < 0.001), pre-dialysis bicarbonate levels (P < 0.001) and pre-dialysis blood K levels (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis (generalized linear model), serum P was again largely unassociated with CTs (P = 0.631). Notably, participating centres were by far the strongest independent correlate of serum P, explaining 45.3% of the variance of serum P over the trial and this association was confirmed at multivariate analysis. Bicarbonate (P < 0.001) and, to a weaker extent, serum K (P = 0.032) were independently related to serum P. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-flux HD, CTs did not significantly affect serum P levels. Participating centres were the main source of P variability during the trial followed by treatment with phosphate binders, serum bicarbonate and, to a weak extent, serum potassium levels (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT011583309).

Predictors of haemoglobin levels and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients treated with low-flux haemodialysis, haemofiltration and haemodiafiltration: results of a multicentre randomized and controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Predictors of haemoglobin (Hb) levels and resistance to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in dialysis patients have not yet been clearly defined. Some mainly uncontrolled studies suggest that online haemodiafiltration (HDF) may have a beneficial effect on Hb, whereas no data are available concerning online haemofiltration (HF). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of convective treatments (CTs) on Hb levels and ESA resistance in comparison with low-flux haemodialysis (HD) and to evaluate the predictors of these outcomes. METHODS: Primary multivariate analysis was made of a pre-specified secondary outcome of a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled study in which 146 chronic HD patients from 27 Italian centres were randomly assigned to HD (70 patients) or CTs: online pre-dilution HF (36 patients) or online pre-dilution HDF (40 patients). RESULTS: CTs did not affect Hb levels (P = 0.596) or ESA resistance (P = 0.984). Hb correlated with polycystic kidney disease (P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (P = 0.025), ferritin (P = 0.018), ESA dose (P < 0.001) and total cholesterol (P = 0.021). The participating centres were the main source of Hb variability (partial eta(2) 0.313, P < 0.001). ESA resistance directly correlated with serum ferritin (P = 0.030) and beta2 microglobulin (P = 0.065); participating centres were again a major source of variance (partial eta(2) 0.367, P < 0.001). Transferrin saturation did not predict either outcome variables (P = 0.277 and P = 0.170). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with low-flux HD, CTs did not significantly improve Hb levels or ESA resistance. The main sources of variability were participating centres, ESA dose and the underlying disease.

Hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration reduce intradialytic hypotension in ESRD.

Symptomatic intradialytic hypotension is a common complication of hemodialysis (HD). The application of convective therapies to the outpatient setting may improve outcomes, including intradialytic hypotension. In this multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned 146 long-term dialysis patients to HD (n = 70), online predilution hemofiltration (HF; n = 36), or online predilution hemodiafiltration (HDF; n = 40). The primary end point was the frequency of intradialytic symptomatic hypotension (ISH). Compared with the run-in period, the frequency of sessions with ISH during the evaluation period increased for HD (7.1 to 7.9%) and decreased for both HF (9.8 to 8.0%) and HDF (10.6 to 5.2%) (P < 0.001). Mean predialysis systolic BP increased by 4.2 mmHg among those who were assigned to HDF compared with decreases of 0.6 and 1.8 mmHg among those who were assigned to HD and HF, respectively (P = 0.038). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated significant risk reductions in ISH for both HF (odds ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.92) and HDF (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.63). There was a trend toward higher dropout for those who were assigned to HF (P = 0.107). In conclusion, compared with conventional HD, convective therapies (HDF and HF) reduce ISH in long-term dialysis patients.

A randomized exploratory trial of steroid avoidance in renal transplant patients treated with everolimus and low-dose cyclosporine.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus and cyclosporine exhibit synergistic immunosuppressive activity when given in combination. In this randomized trial, we explored whether the use of everolimus associated with low-dose cyclosporine could allow an early avoidance of steroids in de novo renal transplant recipients. METHODS: In this exploratory multicenter trial, 65 out of 133 patients treated with basiliximab (days 0 and 4), everolimus 3 mg/day and cyclosporine were randomized to stop steroids on the seventh post-transplant day (group A), whereas the remaining 68 continued low-dose steroid treatment (group B). RESULTS: During the follow-up, 30 patients of group A (46%) resumed steroids. According to the intention-to-treat analysis, the 3-year graft survival rate was 95% in group A and 87% in group B (P = ns). There were more biopsy-proven rejections in group A, the difference being of borderline significance (32% vs 18%; P = 0.059). After 3 years, mean creatinine clearance was 52.3 +/- 17.1 ml/min in group A and 52.2 +/- 21.5 ml/min in group B. It was similar in the group A patients who experienced rejection (49.8 +/- 14.7 ml/min) and those who did not (53.6 +/- 18.3 ml/min; P = 0.319). Mean serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels were, respectively, less than 250 mg/dl and less than 200 mg/dl in both groups, without any significant difference. Vascular thrombosis (0 vs 11.7%; P = 0.0043) was more frequent in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment based on everolimus and low-dose cyclosporine allowed excellent renal graft survival and stable graft function at 3 years. An early discontinuation of steroids increased the risk of acute rejection, but was associated with a better graft survival in the long-term. However, it was well tolerated only by 54% of patients.

Factors influencing glomerular filtration rate in renal transplantation after cyclosporine withdrawal using sirolimus-based therapy: a multivariate analysis of results at five years.

Changes in calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from baseline to five yr were analyzed in relation to risk factors among renal transplant recipients. At three months after transplantation (baseline), 430 eligible patients receiving sirolimus (SRL), cyclosporine (CsA), and steroids (ST) were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue SRL-CsA-ST or have CsA withdrawn and SRL trough levels increased (SRL-ST group). For each risk factor, changes from baseline were compared within each treatment using a t-test and between treatments using ANCOVA. Univariate then multivariate robust linear regression analyses were also performed. In the SRL-ST group, changes from baseline were not significantly different for any risk factor. With the exception of cold ischemia time >24 h, GFR values declined significantly for all risk factors in SRL-CsA-ST patients. For all risk factors, except second transplant or cold ischemia time >24 h, renal function was significantly different between groups. By order of significance in the multivariate analysis, treatment (p < 0.001), donor age (p < 0.001), proteinuria (p < 0.001), and biopsy-confirmed rejection (p = 0.010) were significant predictors of GFR change from baseline. In conclusion, patients with risk factors for reduced renal function benefit from SRL maintenance therapy without CsA vs. those remaining on CsA.

A randomized pilot trial comparing cyclosporine and azathioprine for maintenance therapy in diffuse lupus nephritis over four years.

There is not agreement about the best maintenance treatment for patients with diffuse lupus nephritis. This multicenter, randomized trial compared the safety and efficacy of cyclosporine and azathioprine. Seventy-five patients with diffuse proliferative lupus were given three intravenous methylprednisolone pulses followed by prednisone and oral cyclophosphamide for a median of 90 d. Subsequently, patients were randomly assigned either to cyclosporine or to azathioprine for 2 yr (core study). Treatment continued for up to 4 yr (follow-up study). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of disease flares. Secondary end points were proteinuria per day, creatinine clearance, and adverse effects. Seven flares occurred in the cyclosporine group, and eight occurred in the azathioprine group. At the end of the core study, mean proteinuria decreased from 2.8 +/- 3.57 to 0.4 +/- 0.85 g/d (P < 0.0001) in the cyclosporine group and from 2.2 +/- 1.94 to 0.5 +/- 0.78 g/d (P < 0.0002) in the azathioprine group. After 4 yr, mean proteinuria was 0.2 +/- 0.24 and 0.3 +/- 0.33 g/d, respectively. At the core study end and at the follow-up completion, creatinine clearance and BP levels did not change significantly from baseline in either group. Five of 36 patients who were receiving cyclosporine and four of the 33 who were receiving azathioprine stopped the treatment because of adverse effects. For patients with diffuse proliferative lupus nephritis, azathioprine or cyclosporine combined with corticosteroids demonstrated equal efficacy in the prevention of flares.

Comparison between hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration in a long-term prospective cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the convective treatment modes, on-line hemofiltration (HF) and on-line hemodiafiltration (HDF), regarding cardiovascular tolerance and effects on blood pressure, when applied under similar conditions in stable dialysis patients. METHODS: 39 clinically stable dialysis patients were treated with HD for 6 months (run-in period), followed by HF and HDF in random order for 2x6 months. Similar biocompatibility (same membrane and fluid quality), similar treatment time and urea Kt/V were achieved using AK100/200 ULTRA machines, polyamide membranes in low-flux and high-flux versions and appropriate adjustment of blood flow rate (Qb) and dilution ratio (Qb/Qinf). Predilution was used for HDF (target dilution ratio = 2/1 ) as well as for HF (target dilution ratio = 1/1). RESULTS: 30 patients completed the study; 5 dropped out for non-study related reasons and 4 for non-compliance. Treatment with HF in comparison to HDF showed fewer hypotension episodes during the sessions per patient and month (HF: 0.5, HDF 1.1; p = 0.017), less plasma expander administration per patient and month (HF: 35.9 ml, HDF: 103.1 ml; p = 0.035), fewer episodes of intra-session headache (HF: 0.1, HDF: 0.4; p = 0.06), and higher pre-session MAP (HF: 98.4 mmHg, HDF: 93.8 mmHg; p = 0.037). No significant difference was found in inter-treatment weight gain, post-session MAP, or pre-session plasma sodium. CONCLUSIONS: HF and HDF provide good control of intra-session symptoms and blood pressure in stable patients. Treatment with HF resulted in a significant reduction in intra-session hypotension and a slight but significant increase in pre-session MAP, caused by an increase in systolic BP without any effect on the prevalence of hypertension or the dose of antihypertensive drugs, all compared to HDF.

Corticosteroid effectiveness in IgA nephropathy: long-term results of a randomized, controlled trial.

Proteinuria plays a causal role in the progression of IgA nephropathy (IgAN). A previous controlled trial showed that steroids are effective in reducing proteinuria and preserving renal function in patients with IgAN. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of steroids in IgAN, examine the trend of proteinuria during follow-up (starting from the hypothesis that the degree of reduction in proteinuria may influence IgAN outcome), and evaluate how histologic scores can influence steroid response. A secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of 86 adult IgAN patients who were receiving supportive therapy or intravenous methylprednisolone plus oral prednisone for 6 mo was conducted. Ten-year renal survival was significantly better in the steroid than in the control group (97% versus 53%; log rank test P = 0.0003). In the 72 patients who did not reach the end point (doubling in baseline serum creatinine), median proteinuria significantly decreased (1.9 g/24 h at baseline, 1.1 g/24 h after 6 mo, and 0.6 g/24 h after a median of 7 yr). In the 14 progressive patients, proteinuria increased from a median of 1.7 g/24 h at baseline to 2.0 g/24 h after 6 mo and 3.3 g/24 h after a median of 5 yr. Steroids were effective in every histologic class. Cox multivariate regression analyses showed that, in addition to steroids, a low baseline histologic score, a reduction in proteinuria after 6 mo, and no increase in proteinuria during follow-up all were independent predictors of a beneficial outcome. Steroids significantly reduce proteinuria and protect against renal function deterioration in IgAN. The histologic picture and proteinuria during early and late follow-up improve the prediction of outcome, but considerable variability remains outside the model.

Convection versus diffusion in dialysis: an Italian prospective multicentre study.

The concept of dialysis adequacy has to be widened to include medium size and large molecule removal in addition to urea kinetics. The HEMO study found a non-significant trend toward a beneficial effect on mortality of high-flux dialysis compared with low-flux dialysis. In that study, the beneficial effect of convection could have been attenuated by the fact that 'internal filtration' in high-flux haemodialysis (HD) is lower than that expected by convection in haemofiltration (HF) or haemodiafiltration (HDF). To explore the putative beneficial effect of convection, this Italian multicentre study was planned, comparing on-line convective treatments (HF and HDF) with standard, low-flux HD. The enrolled patients will be evaluated prospectively on their usual treatment for 2 months (baseline period) and subsequently randomized to continue either with low-flux HD (50%) or to start on-line convective treatment (50%), HF or HDF according to a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point of the study will be cardiovascular stability and blood pressure control. As secondary aims of the study, the impact on symptoms, morbidity and mortality will be assessed. Feasibility and patient compliance during HF and HDF treatments will also be evaluated. The experimental phase of the study, of at least 2 years, is divided into a 3-month adaptation period and a subsequent evaluation period. A recruitment period of 1 year is planned. The study design has adequate power to detect an absolute reduction of 3% hypotensive episodes with the experimental convective treatments compared with standard low-flux HD.

[Clinical surveillance after renal transplantation]. / Sorveglianza clinica dopo trapianto renale.

Renal transplantation restores quality of life and social activity, heavily compromised in dialysis patients. After receiving a renal transplantation, patients are looked after by different doctors, who are usually supervised by the team of nephrologists devoted to the Transplant Unit. Aims of the follow-up after renal transplantation are to prevent and cure all renal and systemic dysfunctions, in particular acute and chronic rejection, cardiovascular diseases, infections and malignancies, that a relevantly increased incidence because of immunosuppression. Transplanted patients with stable renal function and good general conditions need a medical care, which is not much different to that necessary for other categories of chronic outpatients. Consequently, participation in the post-transplant care by physicians not specifically involved in the transplant team and not particularly expert in renal transplantation, including GPs, is very welcome, at the condition that they receive adequate information about follow-up protocols and that they respect the indications of physicians responsible of the Transplant Unit.

Immunosuppressive treatment in dialysis patients.

Immunosuppressive treatment is a critical procedure in dialysis patients, in whom an increased risk of infection is already present. Haemodialytic treatment increases the patient's susceptibility to bacterial infection, mainly by impairing polymorphonuclear leukocyte phagocytosis, but it can also restore the patient's immunological defences by improving the T-cell function, which is reduced by pre-dialysis uraemia. Patients on dialysis usually continue the immunosuppressive treatment that had been established for the illness that caused their renal failure [e.g. systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or renal vasculitis]. Less frequently, patients on dialysis need immunosuppression for immunological or inflammatory diseases that appear 'de novo' after initiation of dialysis. SLE and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-related vasculitides are immunological illnesses that frequently cause end-stage renal failure (ESRF). A reduction in serological and/or clinical activity is usually observed in SLE patients after they reach ESRF, but a similar or increased frequency of extrarenal relapse episodes in lupus patients after the beginning of the dialysis, compared with the pre-dialysis period, has also been described. Frequency of relapse episodes in patients on dialysis treatment for ANCA-related vasculitides varies from 10 to 30% per patient/year in different reports, and it is higher than the frequency of relapses after renal transplantation; anti-rejection therapy seems to be the most likely protective factor in these conditions. The treatment of relapse episodes in SLE or ANCA vasculitis in dialysis-dependent patients is usually not different from treatment of relapses in patients with dialysis-independent renal function. However, the risk of severe infection caused by immunosuppressive treatment is relevantly higher in dialysis patients. Furthermore, there is a lack of prospective controlled studies indicating the optimal management of immunosuppressive protocols in dialysis patients. A particularly careful assessment of the patient's risks and benefits is necessary in deciding how long immunosuppressive treatment should last after acute or rapidly progressive renal damage, that should require dialysis treatment, in patients with SLE or ANCA vasculitis. In the above conditions, the risks of prolonging immunosuppressive treatment must be balanced against the relatively good prognosis offered to these patients by dialysis and renal transplantation. In a retrospective review of 24 patients receiving long-term steroid therapy (>3 months) in our dialysis unit in the past 5 years, we found relevant clinical differences in the patients receiving steroid treatment compared with 24 controls. Steroid-treated patients showed less favourable nutritional conditions, with lower serum albumin and body mass index vs non-steroid-treated patients; moreover, C-reactive protein values were persistently higher in the steroid-treated group. Steroid treatment in these patients was usually performed at the beginning of regular dialysis, as a continuation of the treatment that started before the initiation of dialysis. Only two patients, who needed a prolonged low-dose steroidal treatment to control a malnutrition-inflammation-atherosclerosis (MIA) syndrome, started steroids many years after beginning dialysis. Steroid treatment was effective in improving the nutritional condition and inflammatory symptoms in these two patients after all conventional measures had failed.

Long-term results of a randomized study comparing three immunosuppressive schedules with cyclosporine in cadaveric kidney transplantation.

In this randomized controlled trial started in October 1990, 354 cadaveric kidney transplant recipients were assigned to receive either cyclosporine (CsA) monotherapy (115 patients), CsA + steroids (117 patients), or CsA + steroids + azathioprine (122 patients). The median follow-up was 85.1 mo. Thirty-one deaths occurred (infection, 12; cardiovascular disease, 11; neoplasia, 4; and others, 4), and 65 grafts were lost, mostly due to acute (15) or chronic rejection (50). The cumulative graft half-life was 18.1 yr. According to the "intention-to-treat," the 9-yr actuarial patient and graft survival were 94.0% and 73.3%, respectively, in monotherapy, 87.3% and 65.9% in dual therapy, and 87% and 72.2% in triple therapy (P = 0.647). At the last follow-up, the percentage of patients who remained with the original treatment was 51.2% in monotherapy, 81.7% in dual therapy, and 63.3% in triple therapy. At the seventh year, the mean creatinine clearances were 54.9 +/- 17.6 ml/min in monotherapy, 57.9 +/- 23.4 in dual therapy, and 60.6 +/- 20.7 in triple therapy (P = 0.375). Cataracts (P = 0.000), osteoporosis (P = 0.000), and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.000) were more frequent in dual or triple therapy than in monotherapy. Actuarial graft survival at 9 yr in patients on monotherapy who had to have steroids added was similar to that of the other two groups (62.2% versus 69.3%, P = 0.134). In conclusion, actuarial patient and graft survivals did not differ among the three schemes. The long-term renal function and survival were not affected in the patients on monotherapy who needed the addition of steroids. Monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of extrarenal complications than the other two regimens.