Ergocalciferol Supplementation in Hemodialysis Patients With Vitamin D Deficiency: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Locally produced 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 may have pleiotropic effects outside of bone. Experimental and observational studies suggest that nutritional vitamin D may enhance erythropoiesis in settings of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) deficiency. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to assess the effects of supplementation with ergocalciferol on epoetin utilization and other secondary outcomes in patients on hemodialysis with serum 25(OH)D <30 ng/ml. In all, 276 patients were randomized to 6 months of ergocalciferol or placebo. Mean±SD serum 25(OH)D increased from 16.0±5.9 ng/ml at baseline to 39.2±14.9 ng/ml in the ergocalciferol arm and did not change (16.9±6.4 ng/ml and 17.5±7.4 ng/ml, respectively) in the placebo arm. There was no significant change in epoetin dose over 6 months in the ergocalciferol or placebo arms (geometric mean rate 0.98 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.94 to 1.02] versus 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03], respectively) and no difference across arms (P=0.78). No change occurred in serum calcium, phosphorus, intact parathyroid hormone, or C-reactive protein levels, cinacalcet use, or phosphate binder or calcitriol dose in either study arm. Rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and infection-related hospitalizations did not differ by study arm, although statistical power was limited for these outcomes. In conclusion, 6 months of supplementation with ergocalciferol increased serum 25(OH)D levels in patients on hemodialysis with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency, but had no effect on epoetin utilization or secondary biochemical and clinical outcomes.

Medication prescribing patterns in ambulatory haemodialysis patients: comparisons of USRDS to a large not-for-profit dialysis provider.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are prescribed numerous medications. The United States Renal Data System (USRDS) reported on medication prescribing patterns in 1998. Since then, several new medications, treatment guidelines and recommendations have been introduced. The objective was to analyse and compare haemodialysis (HD) patient medication prescribing patterns between the Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (DCI) database and the USRDS report. METHODS: Point-prevalent (01/01/03) medication use data from the DCI national database was obtained. Data collected included patient demographics, reason for and duration of ESRD, and medication listed on profile. All medications were classified similar to the USRDS and by where taken (clinic vs home). Medication prescribing patterns were compared between DCI and USRDS databases. Comparisons between age groups (<65 and >or=65 years) and diabetic status [diabetes mellitus (DM) vs non-DM] were made. RESULTS: There were 128 477 medication orders categorized in 10 474 patients. DCI patient demographics were similar to present USRDS patients except for fewer Hispanics (P<0.001). Patients were prescribed 12.3+/-5.0 (median 12) different medications (2.6+/-1.4 clinic medications and 10.0+/-4.5 home medications). This is higher than reported by USRDS (median 9 medications). Patient age did not influence number of medications used (P = 0.54). DM patients are prescribed more medications than non-DM (13.3+/-5.0 DM vs 11.6+/-4.8 non-DM; P<0.00001). All medication class prescribing patterns were markedly different. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that medication prescribing patterns in HD patients have changed. The audit identified appropriate and questionable prescribing patterns. Various prescribing patterns identified areas for improvement in care (e.g. increased use of aspirin, beta-blockers and hyperlipidaemia medications) and areas requiring further investigation (e.g. high use of anti-acid, benzodiazepine and non-aluminum/non-calcium phosphate-binding medications).

Medication-related problem type and appearance rate in ambulatory hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis (HD) patients are at risk for medication-related problems (MRP). The MRP number, type, and appearance rate over time in ambulatory HD patients has not been investigated. METHODS: Randomly selected HD patients were enrolled to receive monthly pharmaceutical care visits. At each visit, MRP were identified through review of the patient chart, electronic medical record, patient interview, and communications with other healthcare disciplines. All MRP were categorized by type and medication class. MRP appearance rate was determined as the number of MRP identified per month/number of months in study. The number of MRP per patient-drug exposures were determined using: [[(number of patients) x (mean number of medications)]/(number of months of study)] /number of MRP identified. Results were expressed as mean +/- standard deviation or percentages. RESULTS: Patients were 62.6 +/- 15.9 years old, had 6.4 +/- 2.0 comorbid conditions, were taking 12.5 +/- 4.2 medications, and 15.7 +/- 7.2 doses per day at baseline. Medication-dosing problems (33.5%), adverse drug reactions (20.7%), and an indication that was not currently being treated (13.5%) were the most common MRP. 5,373 medication orders were reviewed and a MRP was identified every 15.2 medication exposures. Overall MRP appearance rate was 0.68 +/- 0.46 per patient per month. CONCLUSION: MRP continue to occur at a high rate in ambulatory HD patients. Healthcare providers taking care of HD patients should be aware of this problem and efforts to avoid or resolve MRP should be undertaken at all HD clinics.

Drug record discrepancies in an outpatient electronic medical record: frequency, type, and potential impact on patient care at a hemodialysis center.

BACKGROUND: Patients who require hemodialysis take many drugs. Electronic drug records may be discrepant with what patients are actually taking. Record discrepancies are a potential source of drug-related problems. We sought to determine the extent to which drug record discrepancies occur in a hemodialysis population. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of patients enrolled in a pharmacist clinic at an outpatient hemodialysis center from August-December 2001. Patients participated in monthly drug interviews conducted by a pharmacist, during which patient drug use was determined. Data collected consisted of patient demographics, drug type, and number of drugs. Drug record discrepancies were classified and assigned a potential drug-related problem. Results were compared with the electronic drug record. Patients with documented drug record discrepancies were compared with those patients for whom no discrepancy was identified. RESULTS: Over the 5-month period, 215 drug interviews were conducted in 63 patients. One hundred thirteen drug record discrepancies were identified in 38 patients (60%). Discrepancies (mean +/- SD 1.7 +/- 1.3, range 1-7) were identified during 65 drug interviews (30.2%). Electronic drug records were discrepant by one drug record, two drug records, and more than two drug records 60.0%, 26.2%, and 13.8% of the time, respectively. Drug record discrepancies placed patients at risk for adverse drug events and dosing errors in 49.6% and 34.5%, respectively, of 113 discrepancies. Patient age negatively correlated with the number of drug record discrepancies identified (r = -0.27, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Drug record discrepancies occur frequently among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Incorporation of a pharmacist into the patient care team may increase the accuracy of the electronic drug record and avert unnecessary drug-related problems.

Factors associated with medication-related problems in ambulatory hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Hemodialysis (HD) patients are at risk for medication-related problems. Patient characteristics associated with the number of medication-related problems in HD patients have not been investigated. METHODS: Patient records were reviewed to identify medical problems, prescribed medications, medication indication(s), and medication-related problems. Medication classes and medication-related problems were compared between patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). Correlations were performed to determine whether associations exist between medication-related problems, number of medications, number of medication doses per day, number of comorbid conditions, patient age, and duration of end-stage renal disease while controlling for DM status. RESULTS: Medical records of 133 patients were evaluated. Patients were 60.5 +/- 15.2 years old, prescribed 11.0 +/- 4.2 medications, and had 6.0 +/- 2.3 comorbidities. Medication-related problems were identified in 97.7% of patients. Four hundred seventy-five medication-related problems were identified, averaging 3.6 +/- 1.8 medication-related problems per patient. Patients with DM had more medication-related problems identified than those without DM (303 versus 172 medication-related problems, respectively; P < 0.05). Medication-related problems correlated positively with number of patient comorbidities (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Medication-related problems are prevalent in virtually all HD patients. The number of medication-related problems in an individual patient increases as the number of comorbid conditions increases. The most frequent medication-related problems were drug without indication (30.9%), laboratory (27.6%), indication without drug use (17.5%), and dosing errors (15.4%). Patients with DM are at increased risk for medication-related problems. Health care providers taking care of HD patients should be aware of this problem, and efforts to avoid or resolve medication-related problems should be undertaken at all HD clinics.