Profile of hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis d virus and human immunodeficiency virus infections in hemodialysis patients of a tertiary care hospital in uttarakhand.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Viral hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are important causes of morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients. The present study was performed to assess the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis D virus (HDV) and HIV infections in hemodialysis patients of a tertiary care hospital in Uttarakhand. METHODS: All patients undergoing maintenance HD at our center were screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), antibody to HCV (anti-HCV), antibody to HDV (anti-HDV) and HIV antibody by ELISA. Detailed history regarding age, sex, duration of dialysis, blood transfusions, number of dialysis centers, dialyzer reuse and laboratory data was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (79 males and 39 females) were followed for 18 months with screening for the presence of HBV, HCV and HIV infections. At baseline, 12 (10.2%) patients were positive for HBsAg, 19 (16.1%) for anti-HCV and 2 (1.7%) for HIV antibody. Over 18 months, one additional patient became HBsAg positive and an additional 17 became anti-HCV-positive to give a total of 36 HCV-positive patients. Dual HBV and HCV infection was seen in 5 (4.2%) and anti-HDV antibodies were found in 1 (0.9%) patient. History of blood transfusions, duration of HD, dialyzer reuse and dialysis at multiple centers were found to be important risk factors for anti-HCV positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation and adherence to universal work precautions by dialysis staff is imperative to prevent transmission of these infections.

Serotonin syndrome in maintenance haemodialysis patients following sertraline treatment for depression.

Sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), was used in a dose of 25 mg orally daily in 12 moderate to severely depressed patients of end stage renal disease (ESRD) on maintenance haemodialysis. Virtually all of them showed features of hyperserotonin state and in 11 drug was stopped within 3 weeks. One of the patients developed almost fatal serotonin syndrome and required intensive care with ventilatory support. In our experience the use of SSRI, sertraline for depression in ESRD patients on maintenance haemodalysis was associated with a high incidence of serotonergic side-effects and toxic serotonin syndrome.

Assessing suitability for renal donation: can equations predicting glomerular filtration rate substitute for a reference method in the Indian population?

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of donor renal function has important long-term implications for both the donor and recipient. As the use of recommended filtration markers is limited by cumbersome and costly techniques, renal function is typically estimated using 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (urine-CrCl). Prediction equations used for rapid bedside estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are simple and overcome the inaccuracies of urinary collection and, if validated, can expedite the donor workup besides reducing the cost. We assessed the suitability of urine-CrCl and prediction equations for evaluating potential Indian renal donors. METHODS: 173 consecutive renal donors were enrolled. The predictive capabilities of the Cockcroft and Gault equation for creatinine clearance (CrCl) corrected for body surface area (CG-CrCl), CG-CrCl corrected for GFR (CG-GFR), MDRD-1, MDRD-2 and urine-CrCl were evaluated with 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-GFR as reference GFR. RESULTS: The study population had a mean age of 44.1 years with 74% being females. Mean DTPA-GFR was 83.85 ml/min/1.73 m2. The median percent absolute difference was most with urine-CrCl and least with CG-GFR (21.84 and 13.82). The Pearson's correlation varied from 0.08 to 0.26 (urine-CrCl and MDRD-1). The precision was most with MDRD-1 and least with urine-CrCl (0.07 and 0.01). The bias was least with CG-GFR and most with MDRD-2 (1.34 and 17.16). The number of subjects with predicted GFR values within 30% of DTPA was most with MDRD-1 (86%) and least with urine-CrCl (69%). The sensitivity for selecting a donor with a GFR of > or = 80/ml/min/1.73 m2 was the most with CG-GFR (65.7%), while specificity was maximum with MDRD-2 (90.1%). CONCLUSION: Our results in potential Indian renal donors show that of all the prediction equations MDRD-1 is the most precise and accurate, while CG-GFR is the least biased. However, the poor correlation and level of error exhibited by these equations makes them suboptimal for donor evaluation.

Assessing glomerular filtration rate in healthy Indian adults: a comparison of various prediction equations.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of renal function is important for the diagnosis, stratification and management of kidney disease. As the use of recommended filtration markers is limited by cumbersome and costly techniques, renal function is typically estimated by using various specifically derived prediction equations. Most of these equations have been derived from Caucasian patients suffering from varying degrees of chronic kidney disease. This study considers the validity of these equations in an Indian population without known kidney disease. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two consecutive renal donors who had undergone 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaaceticacid (DTPA) glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation were enrolled. The predictive capabilities of the Cockcroft and Gault equation for creatinine clearance corrected for body surface area (CG-CrCl), CG-CrCl corrected for GFR (CG-GFR), modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) 1, MDRD 2 and 24-hr urinary creatinine clearance (urine-CrCl) were evaluated with DTPA GFR as measured GFR. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 44.7 yrs with 72.2% being female). The mean measured DTPA GFR was 83.42 ml/min with a range of 61-130 ml/min. The median % absolute difference between the calculated and measured GFR was 19.7, 15.4, 19.3, 20.8 and 25.5, respectively, for CG-CrCl, CG-GFR, MDRD 1, MDRD 2 and urine-CrCl. Pearson's correlation between the measured and estimated GFR varied from 0.09-0.27. The precision as reflected by R2 value was 0.05 for CG-CrCl and CG-GFR, 0.06 for MDRD 1 and MDRD 2 and 0.01 for urine-CrCl. The bias was -14.14, 1.46, 11.89, 17.70 and -2.80 for CG-CrCl, CG-GFR, MDRD 1, MDRD 2 and urine-CrCl, respectively. The accuracy within 30% was 71.3, 85, 86, 76 and 69% for CG-CrCl, CG-GFR, MDRD 1, MDRD 2 and urine-CrCl, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results from a healthy Indian population suggest that of all the predictive equations, MDRD 1 and MDRD 2 were the most precise, MDRD 1 the most accurate and CG-GFR the least biased. However, the poor correlation and error level exhibited by these equations makes them sub-optimal for clinical use.