Hepatitis C virus antigen detection is an appropriate test for screening and early diagnosis of hepatitis C virus infection in at-risk populations and immunocompromised hosts.

Early diagnosis remains key for effective prevention and treatment. Unfortunately, current screening with anti-hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV Ab) test may have limited utility in the diagnosis of HCV infection and reinfection. This is of special concern to at-risk population, such as immunocompromised hosts and end-stage renal failure patients on hemodialysis. HCV antigen (Ag) could be useful in identifying the ongoing infection in such clinical scenarios. Hence, we aimed to study the utility of HCV Ag testing for the diagnosis of acute and chronic hepatitis C. Of 89 samples studied, 19 were from acute hepatitis C patients who were immunocompromised or were on hemodialysis, 43 were from active chronic hepatitis C patients and 27 were from patients treated for chronic hepatitis C. All samples were tested for HCV Ag using the Abbott ARCHITECT HCV Ag assay. HCV Ag was reactive in 19/19 samples from acute hepatitis C patients and 42/43 samples from active chronic hepatitis C patients. It was nonreactive in all samples from treated patients. The test showed a sensitivity and specificity of 98.4% and 100.0%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 100.0% and 96.4%, respectively. The HCV antigen test has high clinical sensitivity and specificity and is useful for the diagnosis of acute and chronic hepatitis C infection in at-risk and immunocompromised patients. Its short turnaround time and relatively low cost are advantageous for use in patients on hemodialysis and other at-risk patients who require monitoring of HCV infection and reinfection.

Perspectives on decision making amongst older people with end-stage renal disease and caregivers in Singapore: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing both globally and in Asia. Singapore has the fifth highest incidence of ESRD worldwide, a trend that is predicted to rise. Older patients with ESRD are faced with a choice of haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or conservative management, all of which have their risks and benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to explore perspectives on decision making amongst older (≥70) Singaporean ESRD patients and their caregivers to undergo (or not to undergo) dialysis. DESIGN: Qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three participants were recruited from the largest tertiary hospital in Singapore: seven peritoneal dialysis patients, five haemodialysis patients, four patients on conservative management and seven caregivers. RESULTS: While some patients believed that they had made an independent treatment decision, others reported feeling like they had no choice in the matter or that they were strongly persuaded by their doctors and/or family members to undergo dialysis. Patients reported decision-making factors including loss of autonomy in daily life, financial burden (on themselves or on their families), caregiving burden, alternative medicine, symptoms and disease progression. Caregivers also reported concerns about financial and caregiving burden. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study has identified several factors that should be considered in the design and implementation of decision aids to help older ESRD patients in Singapore make informed treatment decisions, including patients' and caregivers' decision-making factors as well as the relational dynamics between patients, caregivers and doctors.

Biopsychosocial experiences and coping strategies of elderly ESRD patients: a qualitative study to inform the development of more holistic and person-centred health services in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: As the incidence and prevalence rates of end stage renal disease (ESRD) rise globally, a disproportionate increase has been observed in the elderly population. Singapore has the fifth highest incidence of treated ESRD worldwide, with the upward trend of ESRD being most apparent among those aged 70 years and older. Although it is well-documented that ESRD patients suffer an impaired quality of life compared to the general population, there is limited research focusing on the unique experiences and needs of elderly ESRD patients in Asian populations. To address the knowledge gap, this study seeks to explore the impact of ESRD and dialysis on the quality of life of elderly (≥70 years old) ESRD patients in Singapore and examine the coping strategies utilised by these patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 7 peritoneal dialysis patients, 5 haemodialysis patients, 4 patients on non-dialysis supportive care and 7 caregivers in Singapore. Interviews were conducted in English, Chinese, and Malay and fully transcribed. QSR NVivo 11 software was used for analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported that ESRD and dialysis had an impact on three highly interconnected areas of their quality of life: (a) biological/physical (general symptoms, neuromuscular problems, skin problems and poor sleep quality); (b) psychological (depressive symptoms, anxiety and fears, stress and negative self-perceptions); and (c) social (increased dependence on family and loss of social life). There were four key strategies that participants used to cope with these biopsychosocial challenges: (a) family support (financial, practical and emotional support); (b) religious/spiritual support (experiencing gratitude/contentment, the power of prayer and belonging to a faith community); (c) avoidance (cognitive avoidance and distraction techniques); and (d) acceptance (positive thinking and problem solving). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insights into the biopsychosocial impact of ESRD and dialysis, as well as cultural and religious factors that shape the experiences and coping mechanisms of elderly ESRD patients and caregivers in Singapore, which can be used to further the development and implementation of more holistic and person-centred services to help each patient achieve a better quality of life.

COVID-19 vaccination in peritoneal dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine is recommended in Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, but a paucity of data is available regarding vaccine-related adverse effects among PD patients. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a single center between October and November 2021. PD patients were provided with the online survey link to participate in the study. RESULTS: A total of 107 PD patients responded to the survey (55%: male, 79%: Chinese, 40%: > 65 years old). Of these, 95% received the COVID-19 vaccine (77% received two doses and 22% received three doses). Most participants (91%) received Pfizer vaccine. The main source of vaccine information was from the government (48%). The most common reason to receive and refuse vaccines were the perception of the seriousness of COVID-19 infection (63%) and concern about vaccine safety (60%), respectively. After the first dose, 25% of patients developed one or more vaccine-related adverse effects. Common local adverse effect was pain at the injection site (21%), and systemic adverse effects were muscle pain (15%), fatigue (13%). Similar adverse effects were observed with subsequent doses. None of them required hospitalization for vaccine-related adverse effects. Female patients had a higher risk of developing adverse effects than male patients after the first dose (odds ratio: 3.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 - 9.08). No such difference was observed in the subsequent dose. Age, race, employment status and history of drug allergy were not associated with the risk of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 vaccine was well-tolerated by most PD patients, but few experienced non-severe adverse effects. All PD patients should be vaccinated against SAR-COV-2 infection.

Short-Course Systemic and Topical Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Impact on Adverse Renal Events in Older Adults with Co-Morbid Disease.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged systemic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been associated with adverse renal outcomes among older adults. However, there is scant data regarding the renal safety of topical and short-course systemic NSAIDs. We aimed to evaluate the risk of acute adverse renal outcomes among older adults prescribed topical and short-term systemic NSAIDs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all older adults, age 60 years and above, who received prescriptions between July 2015 and December 2017 from the largest tertiary hospital and a major public primary care institution in Singapore. Data from 6 months before until 30 days after the first prescription were retrieved from electronic medical records. The primary outcome was the incidence of acute kidney injury (serum creatinine increased >26.5 µmol/L or >50% from baseline) and/or hyperkalemia within 30 days. A multi-variate analysis taking into account age, sex, co-morbidities, baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum potassium, NSAID route of administration, and concurrent renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker and diuretic prescription was performed to evaluate factors associated with the primary outcome. RESULTS: We identified 12,773 older adults with incident prescriptions: 3982 (31.2%) received short-course systemic NSAIDs, 3784 (29.6%) received topical NSAIDs, and 5007 (39.2%) did not receive any NSAID. Both short-course systemic NSAIDs (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-1.80, p < 0.001) and topical NSAIDs (adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.31-1.67, p < 0.001), compared with the no-NSAID group, were independently associated with the primary outcome. Among older adults with co-morbid conditions and prescribed NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs had a reduced odds of 30-day incident acute kidney injury and/or hyperkalemia in diabetes mellitus (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-1.06, p = 0.007), chronic kidney disease (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.90, p = 0.003), and cardiovascular disease (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37-0.79, p < 0.001), compared with short-course systemic NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs increased the risk of acute adverse renal events. Topical NSAIDs, compared with short-course systemic NSAIDs, were associated with a reduced incidence of acute kidney injury and/or hyperkalemia among older adults with additional risk factors.