Gout Prevalence, Practice Patterns, and Associations with Outcomes in North American Dialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Gout occurs frequently in patients with kidney disease and can lead to a significant burden on quality of life. Gout prevalence, and its association with outcomes in hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) populations located in North America, is unknown. METHODS: We used data from North America cohorts of 70,297 HD patients (DOPPS, 2012-2020) and 5117 PD patients (PDOPPS, 2014-2020). We used three definitions of gout for this analysis: (1) having an active prescription for colchicine or febuxostat; (2) having an active prescription for colchicine, febuxostat, or allopurinol; or (3) having an active prescription for colchicine, febuxostat, or allopurinol, or prior diagnosis of gout. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes among patients with versus without gout. Outcomes included erythropoietin resistance index (ERI=erythropoiesis stimulating agent dose per week/(hemoglobin×weight)), all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: The gout prevalence was 13% in HD and 21% in PD; it was highest among incident dialysis patients. Description of previous history of gout was rare, and identification of gout defined by colchicine (2%-3%) or febuxostat (1%) prescription was less frequent than by allopurinol (9%-12%). Both HD and PD patients with gout (versus no gout) were older, were more likely male, had higher body mass index, and had higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities. About half of patients with a gout history were prescribed urate-lowering therapy. After propensity score matching, mean ERI was 3%-6% higher for gout versus non-gout patients while there was minimal evidence of association with clinical outcomes or PROs. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of PD and HD patients in North America, we found that gout occurs frequently and is likely under-reported. Gout was not associated with adverse clinical or PROs.

A Provider-Based Approach to Address Racial Disparities in Lupus Clinical Trial Participation.

OBJECTIVE: Substantial disparities exist in clinical trial participation, which is problematic in diseases such as lupus that disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minority populations. Our objective was to examine the effectiveness of an online educational course aiming to train medical providers to refer Black and Latino patients to lupus clinical trials (LCTs). METHODS: The American College of Rheumatology's Materials to Increase Minority Involvement in Clinical Trials (MIMICT) study used an online, randomized, 2-group, pretest/posttest design with medical and nursing providers of multiple specialties. We exposed intervention group participants to an education course, while the control group participants received no intervention. Controlling for the effects of participant characteristics, including specialty, and professional experience with lupus, we modeled relationships among exposure to the education course and changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. We also examined education course satisfaction. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the intervention group had significantly higher posttest scores for knowledge, self-efficacy, and intentions to refer Black and Latino patients to LCTs. Both medical and nursing trained intervention group participants had significantly higher mean posttest scores for knowledge and intentions to refer compared to the medical and nursing trained control group participants. Attitude was insignificant in analysis. The online education course, which received a favorable summary score, indicated that satisfaction and intentions to refer were strongly and positively correlated. CONCLUSION: The MIMICT education course is an effective method to educate medical providers about LCTs and to improve their intentions to refer Black and Latino patients.

Sticking to the script: A curious case of confusion in an ESRD patient.

A 60-year-old male Dialysis patient presented with altered mental status and Hypertensive Urgency. He had a significant lesion noted on his glans penis. He was treated for infection and hypertension with expectant management, without significant improvement in his mental acuity. Laboratory and radiologic workup were unrevealing for the etiology. Upon detailed review it was noted he had recently been given Acyclovir for a presumed Herpes Simplex Virus infection. He had been prescribed what is considered correct dosing for an ESRD patient. An Acyclovir level was obtained and urgent Dialysis was undertaken, presuming Acyclovir neurotoxicity may be the culprit. Initially no improvement was noted and a 2nd level and hemodialysis were undertaken. This case and review of the literature will highlight key aspects of acyclovir neurotoxicity in ESRD patients, including how to diagnose and treat, which laboratory tests to obtain and what one can expect from various dialysis modalities. We will also reveal how to dose Acyclovir to avoid toxicity and other key elements of the drug.