Epidemiology update for hepatitis C virus and hepatitis B virus in end-stage renal disease in France.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Risk for HCV/HBV infection is increased in end-stage renal disease patients. We generate updated epidemiological data. METHODS: Based on the National French registry for end-stage renal disease patients, we extracted data for patients who started dialysis or pre-emptive transplantation between January 2005 and December 2013. A positive serum HBs Ag and/or a positive HCV RNA defined HBV and HCV infections, respectively. RESULTS: In all, 72 948 patients were included among which 62.5% were men. At inclusion, 615 patients were HBV+ and 1026 HCV+. The prevalence of HBV and HCV infections were 0.84% (95% PI: 0.78-0.91) and 1.41% (95% PI: 1.32-1.49), respectively. The prevalence of HBV infection by age group increased progressively until a maximum rate at 1.80% (95% PI: 1.46-2.20) in the 4th decade, then regularly decreased. Same profile was observed for HCV prevalence, with a maximum rate at 3.14% (95% PI: 2.68-3.65) in the 4th decade. During the follow-up, we identified new HBV or HCV infections in 117 and 81 patients, respectively, with an overall incidence of 0.076% (95% PI: 0.062-0.090) and 0.053% (95%PI: 0.041-0.065) between 2005 and 2013, respectively. During the first dialysis year, HBV incidence was 0.35% (95% PI: 0.28-0.43) and that of HCV 0.21% (95% PI: 0.16-0.28). CONCLUSION: Our data highlight the need for HCV therapy for more than 1000 end-stage renal disease patients in France, sustained systematic immunization campaigns (HBV) and underlines the persistence of HBV/HCV new hand-borne nosocomial cases.

Transfers from home to facility-based dialysis: comparisons of HHD, assisted PD and autonomous PD.

Background: Home dialysis therapies such as peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) are beneficial for quality of life and patient empowerment. The short technique survival time partly explains their low prevalence. We aimed to assess the risk of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis in patients treated with autonomous PD, assisted PD and HHD. Methods: This was a retrospective study using data from the REIN registry of patients starting home dialysis in France from 2002 to 2019. The risks of transfer to facility-based hemodialysis (HD) were compared between three modalities of home dialysis (HHD, nurse-assisted PD, autonomous PD) using survival models with a propensity score (PS)-matched and unmatched cohort of patients. Results: The study included 17 909 patients: 628 in the HHD group, 10 214 in the autonomous PD group, and 7067 in the assisted PD group. During the follow-up period, there were 5347 transfers to facility-based HD. The observed number of transfers was 2458 (13.7%) at 1 year and 5069 (28.3) at 5 years after the start of home dialysis, including 3272 (32%) on autonomous PD, 1648 (23.3%) on assisted PD, and 149 (23.7) on HHD. Owing to clinical characteristics differences, only 38% of HHD patients could be matched to patients from the others group. In the PS-matched cohort, the adjusted Cox model showed no difference in the risk of transfer for assisted PD (cs-HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75-1.44) or HHD (cs-HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77-1.48) compared with autonomous PD. Conclusions: Unlike results from other countries, where nurse assistance is not fully available for PD-associated care, there was no difference in technique survival between autonomous PD, nurse-assisted PD, and HHD in France. This discrepancy may be attributed to our inclusion of a broader spectrum of patients who derive significant benefits from assisted PD.