Study on the Effect of Low Calcium Dialysate on Biochemical Profile of Adynamic Bone Disease in Patients on Maintenance Hemodialysis.

In recent years, adynamic bone disease (ABD) has become a common skeletal lesion in adult patients with chronic kidney disease. We aimed to compare the effects of low calcium dialysate (LCD) and standard calcium dialysate of our facility [high calcium dialysate (HCD)] on the evolution of bone and mineral parameter related to ABD in dialysis patients. Forty patients with predialysis intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) <100 pg/mL and/or bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP) <27 U/L were included in this study and were equally distributed over LCD (1.25 mmol/L) or HCD (1.75 mmol/L) treatment. The duration of the study was 6 months. There was no significant difference in baseline characters and biochemical parameters related to chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder in both the groups. The groups did not differ in the mean tCa before dialysis, but this parameter was significantly lower in the LCD group versus HCD at the end of the study. The mean serum levels of iPTH, total alkaline phosphatase, and BAP in the LCD group were increased at 3 months and at the end of the study compared with the baseline levels. The bone markers in the HCD group did not change significantly. At the end of the study, all bone parameters in the LCD group were significantly higher than in the HCD group. Development of measures indicating increased bone turnover in patients receiving 1.25 mmol/L of dialysate calcium, most likely as a result of inhibiting a positive calcium balance and allowing for long-term PTH secretion stimulation. Hence, LCD might be considered a valuable therapeutic option for ABD patients.

Comparison of Tocilizumab and High-dose Methylprednisolone Pulse on Outcomes in Severe Corona Virus Disease-2019: TAME-COVID, a Retrospective Multicentric Study.

BACKGROUND: India recently encountered fierce second wave of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and scarcity of novel medications added to the management challenges. Various studies have highlighted the effectiveness of tocilizumab and high-dose steroids in severe COVIDs, but none has compared their efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multi-centric analysis compares intravenous tocilizumab (8 mg/kg/day, maximum dose-800 mg), and intravenous Methylprednisolone Pulse (MPS-1 g/day for 3 days) in severe COVID-19. Both the groups had additionally received the standard of care COVID treatment as per protocol. Outcomes were assessed at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients, with 249 receiving MPS and 87 receiving tocilizumab were compared. Majority of these were males (72.9%) with a mean age of 57.4 ± 13.6 years. Diabetes was the most common comorbidity. Patients in both groups had comparable age distribution, comorbidities, presenting mean-arterial pressures, d-Dimer levels, serum ferritin, serum leukocyte-dehydrogenase, and procalcitonin. However, the tocilizumab group had more number of males, higher incidence of coronary artery disease, more tachypnea and leukocytosis, more number of patients with severe acute respiratory disease syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <100), and higher C-reactive protein levels at presentation. Both groups had comparable adverse events' profile. Tocilizumab group had lesser requirement of invasive ventilation than MPS group (17% vs. 29%, P = 0.038), however mortality at the end of 30 days follow-up was similar (36% vs. 34% respectively; P = 0.678). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab decreased the need for invasive ventilation in severe COVID-19; however, it did not translate to improved survival. A planned prospective randomized study is recommended in this respect to compare their efficacy.