The error of estimated GFR in predialysis care.

The error of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and its consequences in predialysis are unknown. In this prospective multicentre study, 315 predialysis patients underwent measured GFR (mGFR) by the clearance of iohexol and eGFR by 52 formulas. Agreement between eGFR and mGFR was evaluated by concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), total deviation index (TDI) and coverage probability (CP). In a sub-analysis we assessed the impact of eGFR error on decision-making as (i) initiating dialysis, (ii) preparation for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and (iii) continuing clinical follow-up. For this sub-analysis, patients who started RRT due to clinical indications (uremia, fluid overload, etc.) were excluded. eGFR had scarce precision and accuracy in reflecting mGFR (average CCC 0.6, TDI 70% and cp 22%) both in creatinine- and cystatin-based formulas. Variations -larger than 10 ml/min- between mGFR and eGFR were frequent. The error of formulas would have suggested (a) premature preparation for RTT in 14% of stable patients evaluated by mGFR; (b) to continue clinical follow-up in 59% of subjects with indication for RTT preparation due to low GFRm and (c) to delay dialysis in all asymptomatic patients (n = 6) in whom RRT was indicated based on very low mGFR. The error of formulas in predialysis was frequent and large and may have consequences in clinical care.

External validation of the KFRE and Grams prediction models for kidney failure and death in a Spanish cohort of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) is a 2- and 5-year kidney failure prediction model that is applied in chronic kidney disease (CKD) G3 + . The Grams model predicts kidney failure and death at 2 and 4 years in CKD G4 + . There are limited external validations of the Grams model, especially for predicting mortality before kidney failure. METHODS: We performed an external validation of the Grams and Kidney Failure Risk Equation prediction models in incident patients with CKD G4 + at Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Spain, between 1/1/2014 and 31/12/2018, ending follow-up on 30/09/2023. Discrimination was performed calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the Brier score. RESULTS: The study included 339 patients (mean age 72.2 ± 12.7 years and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate 20.6 ± 5.0 ml/min). Both models showed excellent discrimination. The area under the curve (AUC) for Kidney Failure Risk Equation-2 and Grams-2 were 0.894 (95% CI 0.857-0.931) and 0.897 (95%CI 0.859-0.935), respectively. For Grams-4 the AUC was 0.841 (95%CI 0.798-0.883), and for Kidney Failure Risk Equation-5 it was 0.823 (95% CI 0.779-0.867). For death before kidney failure, the Grams model showed acceptable discrimination (AUC 0.708 (95% CI 0.626-0.790) and 0.744 (95% CI 0.683-0.804) for Grams-2 and Grams-4, respectively). Both models presented excellent calibration for predicting kidney failure. Grams model calibration to estimate mortality before kidney failure was also excellent. In all cases, Hosmer-Lemeshow test resulted in a p-value greater than 0.05, and the Brier score was less than 0.20. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with CKD G4 + from southern Europe, both the Grams and Kidney Failure Risk Equation models are accurate in estimating the risk of kidney failure. Additionally, the Grams model provides a reliable estimate of the risk of mortality before kidney failure.

Humoral Response Following Triple Dose of mRNA Vaccines Against SARS-CoV-2 in Hemodialysis Patients: Results After 1 Year of Follow-Up.

Introduction: COVID-19 is associated with an increased mortality in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, achieving a long-lasting effective immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is essential. This study describes the humoral immune response in hemodialysis patients following three doses of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, and explores the factors associated with a sustained immune response. Materials and Methods: We analyzed the monthly serological evolution of SARS-CoV-2 anti-S(RBD) antibodies for 1 year in 178 chronic hemodialysis patients who received three doses of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. The primary outcome was sustained effective humoral response defined as anti-S(RBD) levels > 1,000 AU/ml after 4 months from the third dose. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify features associated with a sustained humoral immune response. Results: After the initial two SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine doses, 77.8% of patients showed an immediate effective humoral response, decreasing to 52.5% after 4 months. Antibody levels were significantly higher in COVID-exposed patients and HBV vaccine responders. After the third dose, 97% of patients showed an effective humoral response, and remained in 91.7% after 4 months. The mean monthly rate of antibody titer decline decreased from 33 ± 14.5 to 25 ± 16.7%. Multivariate regression analysis showed that previous exposure to COVID-19 and response to HBV vaccines were associated with an effective sustained humoral immune response. Conclusion: Immunization with SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines elicits an effective immediate humoral immune response in hemodialysis patients, with a progressive waning in antibody levels. A third booster dose enhances the immune response with significantly higher antibody levels and more sustained humoral immune response. COVID-naïve patients and patients without previous response to HBV vaccines are likely to benefit from receiving more booster doses to maintain an effective immune response.

Late thrombotic complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection in hemodialysis patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increased risk of thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. Hemodialysis patients are already at an increased risk for thromboembolic events such as stroke and pulmonary embolism. The aim of our study was to determine the incidence of late thrombotic complications (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, new-onset vascular access thrombosis) in maintenance hemodialysis patients after recovery from COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 200 prevalent hemodialysis patients in our center at the start of the pandemic. We excluded incident patients after the cohort entry date and those who required hemodialysis for acute kidney injury, and excluded patients with less than 1 month follow-up due to kidney transplantation or death from non-thrombotic causes. FINDINGS: One-hundred and eighty five prevalent hemodialysis patients finally met the inclusion criteria; 37 patients (17.6%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection, out of which 10 (27%) died during the acute phase of disease without evidence of thrombotic events. There was an increased risk of thrombotic events in COVID-19 survivors compared to the non-infected cohort (18.5% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.002) after a median follow-up of 7 months. Multivariate regression analysis showed that COVID-19 infection increased risk for late thrombotic events adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, antithrombotic treatment, and previous thrombotic events (Odds Ratio (OR) 26.4, 95% confidence interval 2.5-280.6, p = 0.01). Clinical and laboratory markers did not predict thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increased risk of late thrombotic complications in hemodialysis patients after infection with COVID-19. Further studies should evaluate the benefit of prolonged prophylactic anticoagulation in hemodialysis patients after recovery from COVID-19.