Nationwide survey of the coronavirus disease 2019 prevention and treatment systems for kidney disease patients: a study of Japanese Society of Nephrology-certified educational facilities.

BACKGROUND: There are no reports of a large-scale survey on the infection prevention measures against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in nephrology facilities. This study investigated the facility-level nephrology practices adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic and their associated challenges. Additionally, the treatment patterns and outcomes of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with COVID-19 were reviewed. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide questionnaire survey of 704 educational facilities that were certified by the Japanese Society of Nephrology (JSN) from October 20, 2020 to November 16, 2020. The questionnaire reviewed the facility characteristics, infection prevention measures taken during routine nephrology practice, impact of COVID-19 on nephrology practice, experiences in managing CKD patients with COVID-19, and nosocomial transmission in the nephrology unit. RESULTS: Of the 347 facilities that responded, 95.1% checked outpatients' body temperatures and COVID-19 symptoms at their visits. To reduce face-to-face contact, 80% and 70% of the facilities lengthened the intervals between outpatient visits and introduced online/telephonic consultations, respectively. As a result, more than half of the hospitals experienced a decrease in the numbers of outpatients and inpatients (64% and 50%, respectively). During the study period, 347 facilities managed 479 CKD patients with COVID-19. Oxygen administration and mechanical ventilation were performed for 47.8% and 16.5% of the patients, respectively, with a 9.2% total mortality rate. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated that JSN-certified educational nephrology facilities adopted multiple measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic; however, they faced several challenges. Sharing these experiences could standardize these approaches and prepare us better for the future.

Feasibility of regression of hypertension using contemporary antihypertensive agents.

BACKGROUND: Recently, we reported that transient treatment of genetically hypertensive rats with high-dose angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) causes regression of established hypertension. In this study, we investigated whether treatment with candesartan or nifedipine controlled-release (CR) resulted in a sustained regression of hypertension in humans. METHODS: Patients aged 30 to 59 years with untreated stage 1 essential hypertension and a family history of hypertension were treated with the antihypertensive agents candesartan (n = 124) or nifedipine CR (n = 120). After 1 year of treatment (phase 1), the medications were tapered and discontinued (phase 2). During phase 2, home and office blood pressures were monitored for another year to assess posttreatment reoccurrence of stage 1 hypertension. RESULTS: In phase 1, after 1 year of treatment a similarly substantial BP decrease was seen in the candesartan (-24.5/16.1 mm Hg) and nifedipine (-26.8/18.0 mm Hg) groups. In phase 2 there was a substantial reoccurrence of hypertension; at the study end, only 1 patient was able to continue without antihypertensive medication. However, a Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant delay of reoccurrence of hyper tension (P = 0.0001) in the candesartan group. CONCLUSIONS: One year of treatment with candesartan or nifedipine CR was not associated with marked regression of hypertension in humans at the standard doses used in this trial. However, withdrawal of candesartan was associated with a slightly longer delay before restarting medications. Further studies with larger doses of candesartan given over a longer time are required to determine whether such a regimen may induce sustainable and clinically relevant reversal of hypertension and alteration in its natural history.

Crossover study of amlodipine versus nifedipine CR with home blood pressure monitoring via cellular phone: internet-mediated open-label crossover trial of calcium channel blockers for hypertension (i-TECHO trial).

OBJECTIVE: We developed a new data collection system named i-converter that could transmit data to a website via cellular phone. Using the system, we compared the effects of two calcium channel blockers on the home blood pressure. METHODS: Amlodipine and nifedipine CR were administered to 41 patients with essential hypertension for more than 6 weeks each in a randomized open-label crossover study. The dose of each drug was increased until the home blood pressure reached the target level of under 135/85 mmHg. RESULTS: The morning home systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower during nifedipine CR treatment: 133 +/- 10/81 +/- 8 mmHg with amlodipine versus 131 +/- 8/80 +/- 8 mmHg with nifedipine CR, P < 0.05. The morning pulse rate was significantly higher during nifedipine CR treatment (69 +/- 9 beats/min with amlodipine versus 70 +/- 9 beats/min with nifedipine CR, P < 0.05). The evening home blood pressure and pulse rate, however, showed no significant differences between the two drugs (128 +/- 11/74 +/- 7 mmHg and 74 +/- 10 beats/min with amlodipine versus 128 +/- 10/75 +/- 7 mmHg and 74 +/- 9 beats/min with nifedipine CR, all not significant). CONCLUSIONS: Nifedipine CR had a stronger antihypertensive effect than amlodipine during the critical morning period, but the morning pulse rate was higher. Our new data transmission system was effective for collecting precise data on the blood pressure and pulse rate via the internet.