Hormone therapy use and the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely used in prostate cancer. However, studies have raised concerns that hormone therapy, particularly the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, could increase the risk of acute kidney injury. METHODS: Men newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer, from 2012 to 2017, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. A matched comparison cohort of prostate cancer-free men was also identified. Hormone therapy use was determined from the Prescribing Information System in Scotland. The primary outcome was hospitalisations with acute kidney injury taken from Scottish hospital records (SMR01) up to June 2019. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for acute kidney injury by hormone therapy use. RESULTS: The prostate cancer cohort contained 10,751 patients followed for 41,997 person years, during which there were 618 hospitalisations with acute kidney injury. Prostate cancer patients had higher rates of acute kidney injury compared with cancer-free controls (adjusted HR = 1.47 95% CI 1.29, 1.69). However, prostate cancer patients currently using hormone therapy (adjusted HR = 1.14 95% CI 0.92, 1.41), including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (adjusted HR = 1.13 95% CI 0.90, 1.40), did not appear to have a marked increase in acute kidney injury compared with prostate cancer patients not using hormone therapy after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, there was little evidence that gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists were associated with marked increases in acute kidney injury.

Association of soluble ST2 with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in renal transplant recipients: a single-centre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Soluble ST2 is a novel biomarker of myocardial fibrosis with an established role in prognostication of patients with heart failure. Its role in cardiovascular risk prediction for renal transplant recipients has not been investigated despite promising results for ST2 in other populations with renal disease. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 367 renal transplant recipients were followed up for a median of 16.2 years to investigate the association of soluble ST2 concentration with all-cause mortality. Cardiovascular mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events were secondary outcomes. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ST2 before and after adjustments. ST2 concentration was analysed both as a continuous variable and following categorisation according to the recommended cut-point of 35 ng/ml. RESULTS: A twofold higher ST2 concentration was associated with a 36% increased risk of all-cause mortality after adjustment for conventional cardiovascular risk factors and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.75; p = 0.016). Associations with ST2 concentration were similar for cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio 1.31; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.73; p = 0.054), but were stronger for cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.61; 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.41; p = 0.022). Addition of ST2 to risk prediction models for mortality and cardiovascular events failed to improve their predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: ST2 is associated with, but does not improve prediction of, adverse outcomes in renal transplant recipients.

Cardiovascular risk in renal transplant recipients.

Successful kidney transplantation offers patients with end-stage renal disease the greatest likelihood of survival. However, cardiovascular disease poses a major threat to both graft and patient survival in this cohort. Transplant recipients are unique in their accumulation of a wide range of traditional and non-traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia and obesity are highly prevalent in patients with end-stage renal disease. These risk factors persist following transplantation and are often exacerbated by the drugs used for immunosuppression in organ transplantation. Additional transplant-specific factors such as poor graft function and proteinuria are also associated with increased cardiovascular risk. However, these transplant-related factors remain unaccounted for in current cardiovascular risk prediction models, making it challenging to identify transplant recipients with highest risk. With few interventional trials in this area specific to transplant recipients, strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk are largely extrapolated from other populations. Aggressive management of traditional cardiovascular risk factors remains the cornerstone of prevention, though there is also a potential role for selecting immunosuppression regimens to minimise additional cardiovascular injury.

Renal replacement therapy should be tailored to the patient.

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) describes loss of kidney function which is both substantial and irreversible. It is associated with acute life-threatening complications such as hyperkalaemia and pulmonary oedema, and chronic metabolic derangements that cannot be sustained in the long-term. Patient education is paramount in ESRD management. The form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) instituted should primarily be based on patient preference subsequent to an individually tailored education programme from specialist staff. This programme needs to take into account the patient's comorbidities and any contraindications to specific modalities of RRT. Transplantation replicates normal renal physiology much more closely than either dialysis modality. Assessment for transplantation requires consideration of the patient's suitability for general anaesthetic and surgery. Patients need to have an adequate blood supply and urinary drainage, and space for a kidney. They must also be suitable candidates for long-term immunosuppression. Ideally patients with ESRD should have a pre-emptive transplant before they require dialysis. Ninety per cent of recipients of a live donor transplant in the UK in 1999-2001 were alive ten years later, compared with 74% of deceased donor recipients. There is no conclusive evidence that either dialysis modality is superior, and unless there are obvious reasons why one therapy is unsuitable, patient preference is usually the deciding factor. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) does not provide the same level of fluid and toxin removal as haemodialysis (HD) and many patients will be forced to transfer to HD within two to three years as PD gradually loses effectiveness. For those who will be suitable for transplantation, optimum management of diabetes, smoking cessation, weight loss, and general fitness is crucial in facilitating this.