Magnesium and Fracture Risk in the General Population and Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Narrative Review.

Purpose of Review: Magnesium is an essential mineral for bone metabolism, but little is known about how magnesium intake alters fracture risk. We conducted a narrative review to better understand how magnesium intake, through supplementation, diet, or altering the concentration of dialysate magnesium, affects mineral bone disease and the risk of fracture in individuals across the spectrum of kidney disease. Sources of Information: Peer-reviewed clinical trials and observational studies. Methods: We searched for relevant articles in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The methodologic quality of clinical trials was assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black criteria checklist. Key Findings: The role of magnesium intake in fracture prevention is unclear in both the general population and in patients receiving maintenance dialysis. In those with normal kidney function, 2 meta-analyses showed higher bone mineral density in those with higher dietary magnesium, whereas 1 systematic review showed no effect on fracture risk. In patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, a higher concentration of dialysate magnesium is associated with a lower concentration of parathyroid hormone, but little is known about other bone-related outcomes. In 2 observational studies of patients receiving hemodialysis, a higher concentration of serum magnesium was associated with a lower risk of hip fracture. Limitations: This narrative review included only articles written in English. Observed effects of magnesium intake in the general population may not be applicable to those with chronic kidney disease particularly in those receiving dialysis.

Justification: Le magnésium est un minéral essentiel pour le métabolisme osseux, mais on en sait peu sur la façon dont un apport en magnésium modifie le risque de fracture. Nous avons procédé à un examen narratif afin de mieux comprendre comment les maladies liées à la densité minérale osseuse et le risque de fracture sont affectés par un apport en magnésium (supplémentation, régime alimentaire ou modification de la concentration de dialysat de magnésium) chez les personnes atteintes d'insuffisance rénale. Sources: Essais cliniques et études observationnelles examinés par des pairs. Méthodologie: Nous avons répertorié les articles pertinents dans les bases de données MEDLINE et EMBASE. Une version modifiée des critères de contrôle de la qualité des études de Downs et Black a servi à évaluer la qualité méthodologique des essais cliniques retenus. Principaux résultats: Le rôle d'un apport en magnésium dans la prévention des fractures n'est pas clair, tant dans la population générale que chez les patients sous dialyse d'entretien. Chez les personnes ayant une fonction rénale normale, deux méta-analyses ont montré que les personnes dont le régime alimentaire est riche en magnésium présentent une densité minérale osseuse plus élevée; alors qu'une revue systématique n'a montré aucun effet sur le risque de fracture. Chez les patients sous hémodialyse d'entretien ou dialyse péritonéale, une concentration plus élevée de dialysat de magnésium est associée à une plus faible concentration d'hormone parathyroïdienne, mais on en sait peu sur les autres effets liés aux os. Dans deux études observationnelles portant sur des patients sous hémodialyse, une concentration plus élevée de magnésium sérique a été associée à un risque plus faible de fracture de la hanche. Limites: Cet examen narratif ne comprend que des articles rédigés en anglais. Il est possible que les effets d'un apport en magnésium observés dans la population générale ne puissent s'appliquer aux personnes atteintes d'une néphropathie chronique, en particulier aux personnes sous dialyse.

Effect of electronic medication reconciliation at the time of hospital discharge on inappropriate medication use in the community: an interrupted time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if enhanced electronic medication reconciliation systems can reduce inappropriate medication use and improve patient care. We evaluated trends in potentially inappropriate medication use after hospital discharge before and after adoption of an electronic medication reconciliation system. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis in 3 tertiary care hospitals in London, Ontario, using linked health care data (2011-2019). We included patients aged 66 years and older who were discharged from hospital. Starting between Apr. 13 and May 21, 2014, physicians were required to complete an electronic medication reconciliation module for each discharged patient. As a process outcome, we evaluated the proportion of patients who continued to receive a benzodiazepine, antipsychotic or gastric acid suppressant as an outpatient when these medications were first started during the hospital stay. The clinical outcome was a return to hospital within 90 days of discharge with a fall or fracture among patients who received a new benzodiazepine or antipsychotic during their hospital stay. We used segmented linear regression for the analysis. RESULTS: We identified 15 932 patients with a total of 18 405 hospital discharge episodes. Before the implementation of the electronic medication reconciliation system, 16.3% of patients received a prescription for a benzodiazepine, antipsychotic or gastric acid suppressant after their hospital stay. After implementation, there was a significant and immediate 7.0% absolute decline in this proportion (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5% to 9.5%). Before implementation, 4.1% of discharged patients who newly received a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic returned to hospital with a fracture or fall within 90 days. After implementation, there was a significant and immediate 2.3% absolute decline in this outcome (95% CI 0.3% to 4.3%). INTERPRETATION: Implementation of an electronic medication reconciliation system in 3 tertiary care hospitals reduced potentially inappropriate medication use and associated adverse events when patients transitioned back to the community. Enhanced electronic medication reconciliation systems may allow other hospitals to improve patient safety.

MyTEMP: Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate TEMPerature (MyTEMP) is a 4-year cluster-randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of using a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol versus a dialysate temperature of 36.5°C on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalization. Randomization was performed at the level of the dialysis center ("the cluster"). OBJECTIVE: The objective is to outline the statistical analysis plan for the MyTEMP trial. DESIGN: MyTEMP is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized trial. SETTING: A total of 84 dialysis centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Approximately 13 500 patients will have received in-center hemodialysis at the 84 participating dialysis centers during the trial period (April 3, 2017, to March 1, 2021, with a maximum follow-up to March 31, 2021). METHODS: Patient identification, baseline characteristics, and study outcomes will be obtained primarily through Ontario administrative health care databases held at ICES. Covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 84 dialysis centers (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group. Centers in the intervention group used a personalized, temperature-reduced dialysate protocol, and centers in the control group used a fixed dialysate temperature of 36.5°C. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (defined as a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) recorded in administrative health care databases. The key secondary outcome is the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure, defined as the patients' predialysis systolic blood pressure minus their nadir systolic blood pressure during the dialysis treatment. Anonymized data on patients' predialysis and intradialytic systolic blood pressure were collected at monthly intervals from each dialysis center. ANALYSIS PLAN: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The primary outcome will be analyzed at the patient level as the hazard ratio of time-to-first event, estimated from a subdistribution hazards model. Within-center correlation will be accounted for using a robust sandwich estimator. In the primary analysis, patients' observation time will end if they experience the primary outcome, emigrate from Ontario, or die of a noncardiovascular cause (which will be treated as a competing risk event). The between-group difference in the mean drop in intradialytic systolic blood pressure obtained during the dialysis sessions throughout the trial period will be analyzed at the center level using an unadjusted random-effects linear mixed model. TRIAL STATUS: The MyTEMP trial period is April 3, 2017, to March 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report results by 2023 once the updated data are available at ICES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MyTEMP is registered with the US National Institutes of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366). STATISTICAL ANALYTIC PLAN: Version 1.1 June 15, 2021.

CONTEXTE: L'essai MyTEMP (Major Outcomes with Personalized Dialysate Temperature) est un essai clinique randomisé en grappes d'une durée de 4 ans comparant l'effet d'un protocole de dialysat personnalisé à température réduite par rapport au dialysat à 36,5 °C sur les hospitalisations et les décès dus à des problèmes cardiovasculaires. La répartition aléatoire des sujets a été effectuée au niveau du centre de dialyse (ci-après appelé « groupe ¼). OBJECTIFS: Exposer les grandes lignes du plan d'analyse statistique de l'essai MyTEMP. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: MyTEMP est un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, basé sur un registre, et randomisé en grappes. CADRE: L'essai est mené dans 84 centres de dialyse en Ontario (Canada). SUJETS: On estime qu'environ 13 500 patients auront reçu des soins d'hémodialyse dans les 84 centres de dialyse participants au cours de la période de l'essai (3 avril 2017 au 1er mars 2021; suivi maximal jusqu'au 31 mars 2021). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les résultats et les données concernant l'identification des patients et leurs caractéristiques initiales seront principalement tirés des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien tenues par l'ICES. Une répartition aléatoire restreinte par les covariables a été employée pour classer les 84 centres de dialyse (1:1) dans le groupe d'intervention ou le groupe témoin. Le groupe d'intervention a utilisé un protocole personnalisé de dialysat à température réduite et le groupe témoin un dialysat à température fixe (36,5 °C). RÉSULTATS: Le principal critère d'évaluation est la combinaison d'un décès d'origine cardiovasculaire ou d'une hospitalisation majeure liée à la santé cardiovasculaire (définie comme une hospitalisation pour un infarctus du myocarde, une insuffisance cardiaque congestive ou un AVC ischémique) enregistrée dans les bases de données administratives du système de santé. Le principal critère d'évaluation secondaire est la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, laquelle est définie comme la tension artérielle systolique du patient avant la dialyse moins la tension artérielle systolique minimale pendant la dialyse. Les données anonymisées sur la tension artérielle systolique initiale et la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique des patients ont été colligées à intervalles mensuels dans chaque centre de dialyse. PLAN D'ANALYSE: L'analyse primaire adoptera une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter. Le principal critère d'évaluation sera analysé au niveau du patient comme le risque relatif de survenue d'un premier événement, estimé à partir d'un modèle de risques de sous-distribution. La corrélation intracentre sera prise en compte à l'aide d'un robuste estimateur sandwich. Dans l'analyse primaire, le temps d'observation des patients prendra fin s'ils présentent le principal critère d'évaluation, s'ils déménagent hors de l'Ontario ou s'ils décèdent d'une cause non cardiovasculaire (qui sera traitée comme un événement à risque concurrentiel). La différence entre les groupes quant à la baisse moyenne de la tension artérielle systolique intradialytique, obtenue pendant les séances de dialyse tout au long de l'essai, sera analysée au niveau du centre avec un modèle linéaire mixte à effets aléatoires non corrigé. STATUT DE L'ESSAI: L'essai MyTEMP couvre la période du 3 avril 2017 au 31 mars 2021. Nous comptons analyser et rendre compte des résultats d'ici 2023, dès que les données mises à jour seront disponibles à l'ICES. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'ESSAI: MyTEMP est enregistré auprès du National Institute of Health des États-Unis sur clincaltrials.gov (NCT02628366).

Advanced Medication Reconciliation: A Systematic Review of the Impact on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events Associated with Transitions of Care.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review on the impact of in-hospital electronic/enhanced medication reconciliation compared to basic medication reconciliation on medication errors, discrepancies, and adverse drug events (ADEs). METHODS: The study team searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles in EMBASE, OVID, and Scopus databases up to October 2019. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pre-post, or interrupted time series designs with medication errors, discrepancies, or ADEs as an outcome, and medication reconciliation applied at hospital discharge. Basic medication reconciliation was defined as using a paper-based format, electronic medication reconciliation as using an electronic format, and enhanced medication reconciliation as incorporating additional interventions to reduce medication errors. RESULTS: Ten studies (three RCTs, one retrospective cohort study, two interrupted time series studies, three pre-post studies, and one longitudinal study) were identified, with six and four studies comparing basic medication reconciliation to electronic and enhanced medication reconciliation, respectively. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low (three), unclear (two), moderate (three), and serious/high (two). In general, studies demonstrated that electronic medication reconciliation reduced the odds of a medication discrepancy or ADE and may reduce the mean number of medication discrepancies. Enhanced medication reconciliation was more equivocal, with some studies showing improvement; however, risk of bias was generally significant. CONCLUSION: Electronic medication reconciliation tends to reduce the risk of ADE; however, these conclusions were limited due to a lack of consistency in study settings, interventions, and outcome definitions. Future studies with more rigorous designs and standardized outcome definitions would provide clarity on this topic.