Mortality in Thai Nursing Homes Based on Antimicrobial-Resistant Enterobacterales Carriage and COVID-19 Lockdown Timing: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales carriage and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown measures may impact the incidence all-cause mortality rate among nursing home residents. To determine the all-cause mortality rate in the presence/absence of antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales carriage and the incidence all-cause mortality rate before and during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, this prospective closed-cohort study was conducted at various types of nursing homes in Bangkok, Thailand, from June 2020 to December 2021. The elderly residents included 142 participants (aged ≥60 years) living in nursing homes ≥3 months, who did not have terminal illnesses. Time-to-event analyses with Cox proportional hazards models and stratified log-rank tests were used. The all-cause mortality rate was 18%, and the incidence all-cause mortality rate was 0.59/1000 person-days in residents who had antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales carriage at baseline. Meanwhile, the incidence all-cause mortality rate among noncarriage was 0.17/1000 person-days. The mortality incidence rate of carriage was three times higher than residents who were noncarriage without statistical significance (HR 3.2; 95% CI 0.74, 13.83). Residents in nonprofit nursing homes had a higher mortality rate than those in for-profit nursing homes (OR 9.24; 95% CI 2.14, 39.86). The incidence mortality rate during and before lockdown were 0.62 and 0.30, respectively. Effective infection-control policies akin to hospital-based systems should be endorsed in all types of nursing homes. To limit the interruption of long-term chronic care, COVID-19 prevention should be individualized to nursing homes.

Efficacy and safety of urate-lowering agents in asymptomatic hyperuricemia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic hyperuricemia was found to be associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk but the potential benefits of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) with frequentist model to estimate the efficacy and safety of ULT in asymptomatic hyperuricemia. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of adults with asymptomatic hyperuricemia were eligible if they compared any pair of ULTs (i.e., allopurinol, febuxostat, probenecid, benzbromarone, sulfinpyrazone, rasburicase, lesinurad, and topiroxostat) and placebo or no ULT, and had outcomes of interest, including composite renal events, major adverse cardiovascular events, serum urate levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic blood pressure, and adverse events. RESULTS: NMA with frequentist approach was applied to estimate relative treatment effects, i.e., risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). A total of 23 RCTs were eligible. NMA identified beneficial effects of ULT on composite renal events and eGFR but not for other outcomes. Allopurinol and febuxostat had significantly lower composite renal events than placebo (RR 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.66, and RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99, respectively). Both treatments also resulted in significantly higher eGFR than placebo (MD 3.69 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 1.31 to 6.08, and MD 2.89 ml/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 0.69 to 5.09, respectively). No evidence of inconsistency was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that allopurinol and febuxostat are the ULTs of choice in reducing composite renal events and improving renal function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019145908. The date of the first registration was 12th November 2019.

Efficacy and Safety of Antiviral Agents in Preventing Allograft Rejection Following CMV Prophylaxis in High-Risk Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Many antiviral agents have been studied in clinical trials for allograft rejection prevention following cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients. However, data on the most effective and safest treatment are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to rank CMV prophylaxis agents for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis in high-risk kidney transplant patients according to their efficacy and safety. We conducted searches on the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases, as well as the reference lists of selected studies up to December 2021, for published and peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of CMV prophylaxis agents in high-risk kidney transplant patients. Thirteen studies were independently selected by three reviewers and included post-kidney transplant patients indicated for CMV prophylaxis who had been randomized to receive prophylactic antiviral agents or standard of care. The reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies, and direct and network meta-analyses were applied to assess the study outcomes. The probability of efficacy and safety was evaluated, and the drugs were assigned a numerical ranking. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcome was an incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection, whereas the secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse drug reactions. Each outcome referred to the definition provided in the original studies. Valganciclovir, valacyclovir, and ganciclovir were identified to significantly decrease the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection with pooled risk differences (RDs) of -20.53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = -36.09% to -4.98%), -19.3% (95% CI = -32.7% to -5.93%), and -10.4% (95% CI = -19.7% to -0.12%), respectively. The overall major adverse drug reaction was 5.7% without a significant difference when compared with placebo. Valganciclovir had the best combined efficacy and safety among the examined antiviral agents and was the most effective and safest antiviral agent overall for allograft rejection prevention following CMV prophylaxis. Valacyclovir was the optimal alternative antiviral agent for patients who were unable to tolerate intravenous ganciclovir or access oral valganciclovir as financial problem. However, compliance and dose-related toxicities should be closely monitored.

Efficacy and safety of conventional antiviral agents in preventive strategies for cytomegalovirus infection after kidney transplantation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is common in kidney transplantation (KT). Antiviral-agents are used as universal prophylaxis. Our purpose aimed to compare and rank efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL were used from inception to September 2020 regardless language restriction. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the CMV infection/disease prophylaxis among antiviral-agents in adult KT recipients. Of 24 eligible RCTs, prophylactic valganciclovir (VGC) could significantly lower the overall CMV infection and disease risks than placebo with pooled risk differences (RDs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of -0.36 (-0.54, -0.18) and -0.28 (-0.48, -0.08), respectively. Valacyclovir (VAC) and ganciclovir (GC) significantly decreased risks with the corresponding RDs of -0.25 (-0.32, -0.19) and -0.30 (-0.37, -0.22) for CMV infection and -0.26 (-0.40, -0.12) and -0.22 (-0.31, -0.12) for CMV disease. For subgroup analysis by seropositive-donor and seronegative-recipient (D+/R-), VGC and GC significantly lowered the risk of CMV infection/disease with RDs of -0.42 (-0.84, -0.01) and -0.35 (-0.60, -0.12). For pre-emptive strategies, GC lowered the incidence of CMV disease significantly with pooled RDs of -0.33 (-0.47, -0.19). VGC may be the best in prophylaxis of CMV infection/disease follow by GC. VAC might be an alternative where VGC and GC are not available.

Evaluation of the cost-utility of phosphate binders as a treatment option for hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients commonly results in vascular calcification leading to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Phosphate binders (PBs) are used for hyperphosphatemia and can be calcium-based (CBPBs) or non-calcium-based (NCBPBs), the latter being more expensive than CBPBs. In this study, we used meta-analysis approaches to assess the cost-utility of PBs for hyperphosphatemia in CKD patients. METHODS: Relevant studies published prior to June 2019 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry. Studies were eligible if they included CKD patients with hyperphosphatemia, compared any PBs and reported economic outcomes. Meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) across studies stratified by country income. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies encompassing 32 comparisons were eligible. Lanthanum carbonate, a NCBPB, was a more cost-effective option than CBPBs in high-income countries (HICs), with a pooled INB of $3984.4 (599.5-7369.4), especially in pre-dialysis patients and used as a second-line option with INBs of $4860.2 (641.5-9078.8), $4011.0 (533.7-7488.3), respectively. Sevelamer, also a NCBPB, was not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs with a pooled INB of $6045.8 (- 23,453.0 to 35,522.6) and $34,168.9 (- 638.0 to 68,975.7) in HICs and upper middle-income countries, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lanthanum carbonate was significantly more cost-effective than CBPBs as a second-line option for hyperphosphatemia in pre-dialysis patients in HICs. However, the use of sevelamer is not more cost-effective as a first-line option compared to CBPBs.