Intensive haemodialysis using PMMA dialyser does not increase renal response rate in multiple myeloma patients with acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Intensive haemodialysis (IHD) in addition to bortezomib-based chemotherapy might be efficient to rapidly decrease serum immunoglobulin-free light chains removal in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and to improve renal prognosis and survival. METHODS: The aim of this retrospective multi-centre study was to compare the efficacy (renal recovery rate) of IHD and of standard haemodialysis (SHD) in patients with MM and dialysis-dependent acute kidney injury (AKI), concomitantly treated with bortezomib-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: We selected 41 patients with MM and dialysis-dependent AKI, most likely due to myeloma cast nephropathy (MCN), and who were treated in eight French hospitals between January 2007 and June 2011. Patients were classified in two groups according to dialysis regimen: IHD [n = 21, with a mean of 11.3 dialysis sessions all with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) membranes for 13.2 days] and SHD (n = 20 patients, mostly three times per week, 31% with PMMA membrane). The main outcome was dialysis-independence at 3 months. At 3 months, 15 patients could stop dialysis: 8 (38.1%) in the IHD and 7 (35%) in the SHD group (P = 1). Moreover, 14 (56%) of the 25 patients who did show haematological response and only one of the 16 patients who did not were dialysis-independent (P = 0.002) at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this retrospective study did not show any clear renal benefit of IHD in patients with MM and MCN compared with SHD. Conversely, they underline the importance of the haematological response to chemotherapy for the renal response and patient prognosis.

[Is cancer incidence different between type 2 diabetes patients compared to non-diabetics in hemodialysis? A study from the REIN registry]. / Patients en hémodialyse : l'incidence de cancer est-elle différente entre les diabétiques de type 2 comparés aux non-diabétiques ? Une étude du registre REIN.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In France, diabetes mellitus is now the second cause of end stage renal disease. In a large previous French national study, we observed that dialyzed diabetics have a significant lower risk of death by cancer. This first study was focused on cancer death but did not investigate cancer incidence. In this context, the aim of this second study was to compare the incidence of cancer in diabetic dialyzed patients compared to non-diabetic dialyzed patients in a French region. METHODS: This epidemiologic multicentric study included 588 diabetic and non-diabetic patients starting hemodialysis between 2002 and 2007 in Bretagne. Data were issued from REIN registry and cancer incidence were individually collected from medical records. Diabetics and non-diabetics were matched one by one on age, sex and year of dialysis initiation. RESULTS: During the follow-up, we observed 28 cancers (9.4%) in diabetic patients and 26 cancers (8.9%) in non-diabetics patients. The cumulative incidence to develop a cancer 2 years after the dialysis start was approximately 6% in both diabetics and non-diabetics patients. In univariate Fine and Gray analysis, BMI, hemoglobin, statin use had P-value<0.2. However, in the adjusted model, these variables were not significantly associated with cancer incidence. CONCLUSION: This study lead on a little number of dialyzed patients did not show any significant difference on cancer incidence between diabetic and non-diabetic patients after hemodialysis start.

PKD2-Related Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease: Prevalence, Clinical Presentation, Mutation Spectrum, and Prognosis.

BACKGROUND: PKD2-related autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is widely acknowledged to be of milder severity than PKD1-related disease, but population-based studies depicting the exact burden of the disease are lacking. We aimed to revisit PKD2 prevalence, clinical presentation, mutation spectrum, and prognosis through the Genkyst cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Case series, January 2010 to March 2016. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Genkyst study participants are individuals older than 18 years from 22 nephrology centers from western France with a diagnosis of ADPKD based on Pei criteria or at least 10 bilateral kidney cysts in the absence of a familial history. Publicly available whole-exome sequencing data from the ExAC database were used to provide an estimate of the genetic prevalence of the disease. OUTCOMES: Molecular analysis of PKD1 and PKD2 genes. Renal survival, age- and sex-adjusted estimated glomerular filtration rate. RESULTS: The Genkyst cohort included 293 patients with PKD2 mutations (203 pedigrees). PKD2 patients with a nephrology follow-up corresponded to 0.63 (95% CI, 0.54-0.72)/10,000 in Brittany, while PKD2 genetic prevalence was calculated at 1.64 (95% CI, 1.10-3.51)/10,000 inhabitants in the European population. Median age at diagnosis was 42 years. Flank pain was reported in 38.9%; macroscopic hematuria, in 31.1%; and cyst infections, in 15.3% of patients. At age 60 years, the cumulative probability of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was 9.8% (95% CI, 5.2%-14.4%), whereas the probability of hypertension was 75.2% (95% CI, 68.5%-81.9%). Although there was no sex influence on renal survival, men had lower kidney function than women. Nontruncating mutations (n=36) were associated with higher age-adjusted estimated glomerular filtration rates. Among the 18 patients with more severe outcomes (ESRD before age 60), 44% had associated conditions or nephropathies likely to account for the early progression to ESRD. LIMITATIONS: Younger patients and patients presenting with milder forms of PKD2-related disease may not be diagnosed or referred to nephrology centers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PKD2-related ADPKD typically present with mild disease. In case of accelerated degradation of kidney function, a concomitant nephropathy should be ruled out.

Isonatric Dialysis Biofeedback in Hemodiafiltration with Online Regeneration of Ultrafiltrate in Hypertensive Hemodialysis Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study.

UNLABELLED: Dialysis biofeedback in hemodiafiltration with online regeneration of ultrafiltrate (HFR) could help to improve arterial hypertension. We evaluated the impact of isonatric HFR (HFR-iso) on hypertension control compared to conventional HFR. Forty-seven hemodialysis patients were included and randomized (ratio 2/1) HFR-iso versus HFR during 24 dialysis sessions. In the HFR-iso group (32 patients, 768 dialysis sessions), the predialytic systolic blood pressure (BP) decreased from S1 to S24 of 9 ± 20 mm Hg and increased of 5 ± 24 mm Hg in the HFR group (15 patients, 360 dialysis sessions), variation that differed between the 2 groups (x0394;S1-S24, p = 0.035; interaction group*time, p = 0.012). The diastolic BP (HFR-iso -3 ± 14 mm Hg vs. HFR 5 ± 13 mm Hg; p = 0.088), the DDD of antihypertensive treatment and the dry weight did not vary significantly during the study. Number of sessions complicated by symptomatic hypotension was similar in the 2 groups. HFR-iso improved BP control without increasing dialysis hypotension episodes. SHORT SUMMARY: In this multicenter, open-label, controlled, randomized study, we evaluated the impact of dialysis biofeedback in HFR on arterial hypertension compared to conventional HFR. We observed that HFR-iso improved arterial BP control without increasing dialysis hypotension episodes.

Effect of a plasma sodium biofeedback system applied to HFR on the intradialytic cardiovascular stability. Results from a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is still a major clinical problem for haemodialysis (HD) patients. Haemodiafiltration (HDF) has been shown to be able to reduce the incidence of IDH. METHODS: Fifty patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, crossover international study focussed on a variant of traditional HDF, haemofiltration with endogenous reinfusion (HFR). After a 1-month run-in period on HFR, the patients were randomized to two treatments of 2 months duration: HFR (Period A) or HFR-Aequilibrium (Period B), followed by a 1-month HFR wash-out period and then switched to the other treatment. HFR-Aequilibrium (HFR-Aeq) is an evolution of the haemofiltration with endogenous reinfusion (HFR) dialysis therapy, with dialysate sodium concentration and ultrafiltration rate profiles elaborated by an automated procedure. The primary end point was the frequency of IDH. RESULTS: Symptomatic hypotension episodes were significantly lower on HFR-Aeq versus HFR (23 ± 3 versus 31 ± 4% of sessions, respectively, P l= l0.03), as was the per cent of clinical interventions (17 ± 3% of sessions with almost one intervention on HFR-Aeq versus 22 ± 2% on HFR, P <0.01). In a post-hoc analysis, the effect of HFR-Aeq was greater on more unstable patients (35 ± 3% of sessions with hypotension on HFR-Aeq versus 71 ± 3% on HFR, P <0.001). No clinical or biochemical signs of Na/water overload were registered during the treatment with HFR-Aeq. CONCLUSIONS: HFR-Aeq, a profiled dialysis supported by the Natrium sensor for the pre-dialysis Na(+) measure, can significantly reduce the burden of IDH. This could have an important impact in every day dialysis practice.