Predictors of quality of life in patients within the first year of commencing haemodialysis based on baseline data from the PIVOTAL trial and associations with the study outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Impaired quality of life is common in patients with end-stage kidney disease. We report the baseline quality of life measures in participants from the PIVOTAL randomized controlled trial and the potential relationship with the primary outcome (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure hospitalisation), and associations with key baseline characteristics. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 2141 patients enrolled in the PIVOTAL trial. Quality of life was measured using EQ5D index, Visual Analogue Scale, and the KD-QoL [Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score]. RESULTS: Mean baseline EQ5D index and visual analogue scale scores were 0.68 and 60.7 and 33.7 (Physical Component Score) and 46.0 (Mental Component Score), respectively. Female sex, higher Body Mass Index, diabetes mellitus, history of myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure were associated with significantly worse EQ5D index and visual analogue scale. Higher C-reactive protein levels and lower transferrin saturation were associated with worse quality of life. Haemoglobin was not an independent predictor of quality of life. A lower transferrin saturation was an independent predictor of worse physical component score. A higher C-reactive protein level was associated with most aspects of worse quality of life. Impaired functional status was associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Quality of life was impaired in patients starting haemodialysis. A higher C-reactive protein level level was a consistent independent predictor of the majority of worse quality of life. Transferrin saturation ≤ 20% was associated with worse physical component score of quality of life. Baseline quality of life was predictive of all-cause mortality and the primary outcome measure. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

High-dose intravenous iron reduces myocardial infarction in patients on haemodialysis.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of high-dose iron vs. low-dose intravenous (IV) iron on myocardial infarction (MI) in patients on maintenance haemodialysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a pre-specified analysis of secondary endpoints of the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients trial (PIVOTAL) randomized, controlled clinical trial. Adults who had started haemodialysis within the previous year, who had a ferritin concentration <400 µg per litre and a transferrin saturation <30% were randomized to high-dose or low-dose IV iron. The main outcome measure for this analysis was fatal or non-fatal MI. Over a median of 2.1 years of follow-up, 8.4% experienced a MI. Rates of type 1 MIs (3.2/100 patient-years) were 2.5 times higher than type 2 MIs (1.3/100 patient-years). Non-ST-elevation MIs (3.3/100 patient-years) were 6 times more common than ST-elevation MIs (0.5/100 patient-years). Mortality was high after non-fatal MI (1- and 2-year mortality of 40% and 60%, respectively). In time-to-first event analyses, proactive high-dose IV iron reduced the composite endpoint of non-fatal and fatal MI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.93, P = 0.01] and non-fatal MI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; P = 0.01) when compared with reactive low-dose IV iron. There was less effect of high-dose IV iron on recurrent MI events than on the time-to-first event analysis. CONCLUSION: In total, 8.4% of patients on maintenance haemodialysis had an MI over 2 years. High-dose compared to low-dose IV iron reduced MI in patients receiving haemodialysis. EUDRACT REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2013-002267-25.

Impact of incremental initiation of haemodialysis on mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Incremental haemodialysis initiation entails lower sessional duration and/or frequency than the standard 4 h thrice-weekly approach. Dialysis dose is increased as residual kidney function (RKF) declines. This systematic review evaluates its safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to 27 February 2022. Eligible studies compared incremental haemodialysis (sessions either fewer than three times weekly or of duration <3.5 h) with standard treatment. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events, loss of RKF, quality of life and cost effectiveness. The study protocol was prospectively registered. Risk of bias assessment used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool, as appropriate. Meta-analyses were undertaken in Review Manager, Version 5.4. RESULTS: A total of 644 records were identified. Twenty-six met the inclusion criteria, including 22 cohort studies and two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Sample size ranged from 48 to 50 596 participants (total 101 476). We found no mortality differences (hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI 0.80-1.24). Cohort studies suggested similar hospitalization rates though the two small RCTs suggested less hospitalization after incremental initiation (relative risk = 0.31; 95% CI 0.18-0.54). Data on other treatment-emergent adverse events and quality of life was limited. Observational studies suggested reduced loss of RKF in incremental haemodialysis. This was not supported by RCT data. Four studies reported reduced costs of incremental treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental initiation of haemodialysis does not confer greater risk of mortality compared with standard treatment. Hospitalization may be reduced and costs are lower.

An Analysis of Vascular Access Thrombosis Events From the Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis Patients Trial.

Introduction: Treatment of anemia in dialysis patients has been associated with increased risk of vascular access thrombosis (VAT). Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis Patients (PIVOTAL) was a clinical trial of proactive compared with reactive i.v. iron therapy in patients requiring hemodialysis. We analyzed the trial data to determine whether randomized treatment arm, alongside other clinical and laboratory variables, independently associated with VAT. Methods: In PIVOTAL, 2141 adult patients were randomized. The type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula [AVF], arteriovenous graft [AVG], or central venous catheter [CVC]) was recorded at baseline and every month after randomization. The associations between clinical and laboratory data and first VAT were evaluated in a multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 480 (22.4%) participants experienced VAT in a median of 2.1 years of follow-up. In multivariable analyses, treatment arm (proactive vs. reactive) was not an independent predictor of VAT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, P = 0.18). Diabetic kidney disease (HR 1.45, P < 0.001), AVG use (HR 2.29, P < 0.001), digoxin use (HR 2.48, P < 0.001), diuretic use (HR 1.25, P = 0.02), female sex (HR 1.33, P = 0.002), and previous/current smoker (HR 1.47, P = 0.004) were independently associated with a higher risk of VAT. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use (HR 0.66, P = 0.01) was independently associated with a lower risk of VAT. Conclusion: In PIVOTAL, VAT occurred in nearly 1 quarter of participants in a median of just >2 years. In this post hoc analysis, randomization to proactive i.v. iron treatment arms did not increase the risk of VAT.

Randomized Trial-PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis.

INTRODUCTION: Whether clinically implementable exercise interventions in people receiving hemodialysis (HD) therapy improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) remains unknown. The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life (PEDAL) study evaluated the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise program. METHODS: In a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, people receiving HD were randomly assigned to (i) intradialytic exercise training (exercise intervention group [EX]) and (ii) usual care (control group [CON]). Primary outcome was change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short-Form Physical Component Summary (KDQOL-SF 1.3 PCS) from baseline to 6 months. Cost-effectiveness was determined using health economic analysis; physiological impairment was evaluated by peak oxygen uptake; and harms were recorded. RESULTS: We randomized 379 participants; 335 and 243 patients (EX n = 127; CON n = 116) completed baseline and 6-month assessments, respectively. Mean difference in change PCS from baseline to 6 months between EX and CON was 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.1 to 4.8) arbitrary units (P = 0.055); no improvements were observed in peak oxygen uptake or secondary outcome measures. Participants in the intervention group had poor compliance (47%) and poor adherence (18%) to the exercise prescription. Cost of delivering intervention ranged from US$598 to US$1092 per participant per year. The number of participants with harms was similar between EX (n = 69) and CON (n = 56). A primary limitation was the lack of an attention CON. Many patients also withdrew from the study or were too unwell to complete all physiological outcome assessments. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month intradialytic aerobic exercise program was not clinically beneficial in improving HRQoL as delivered to this cohort of deconditioned patients on HD.

Exercise programme to improve quality of life for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving haemodialysis: the PEDAL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Whether or not clinically implementable exercise interventions in haemodialysis patients improve quality of life remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The PEDAL (PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in patients with chronic kidney disease) trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise programme on quality of life compared with usual care for haemodialysis patients. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial of haemodialysis patients from five haemodialysis centres in the UK and randomly assigned them (1 : 1) using a web-based system to (1) intradialytic exercise training plus usual-care maintenance haemodialysis or (2) usual-care maintenance haemodialysis. SETTING: The setting was five dialysis units across the UK from 2015 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were adult patients with end-stage kidney disease who had been receiving haemodialysis therapy for > 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive usual-care maintenance haemodialysis or usual-care maintenance haemodialysis plus intradialytic exercise training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the study was change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, physical component summary score (from baseline to 6 months). Cost-effectiveness was determined using health economic analysis and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Additional secondary outcomes included quality of life (Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, generic multi-item and burden of kidney disease scales), functional capacity (sit-to-stand 60 and 10-metre Timed Up and Go tests), physiological measures (peak oxygen uptake and arterial stiffness), habitual physical activity levels (measured by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Duke Activity Status Index), fear of falling (measured by the Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale), anthropometric measures (body mass index and waist circumference), clinical measures (including medication use, resting blood pressure, routine biochemistry, hospitalisations) and harms associated with intervention. A nested qualitative study was conducted. RESULTS: We randomised 379 participants; 335 patients completed baseline assessments and 243 patients (intervention, n = 127; control, n = 116) completed 6-month assessments. The mean difference in change in physical component summary score from baseline to 6 months between the intervention group and control group was 2.4 arbitrary units (95% confidence interval -0.1 to 4.8 arbitrary units; p = 0.055). Participants in the intervention group had poor compliance (49%) and very poor adherence (18%) to the exercise prescription. The cost of delivering the intervention ranged from £463 to £848 per participant per year. The number of participants with harms was similar in the intervention (n = 69) and control (n = 56) groups. LIMITATIONS: Participants could not be blinded to the intervention; however, outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. CONCLUSIONS: On trial completion the primary outcome (Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form, version 1.3, physical component summary score) was not statistically improved compared with usual care. The findings suggest that implementation of an intradialytic cycling programme is not an effective intervention to enhance health-related quality of life, as delivered to this cohort of deconditioned patients receiving haemodialysis. FUTURE WORK: The benefits of longer interventions, including progressive resistance training, should be confirmed even if extradialytic delivery is required. Future studies also need to evaluate whether or not there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from this type of intervention, and whether or not there is scope to optimise the exercise intervention to improve compliance and clinical effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83508514. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Although the benefits of exercise in the general population are well recognised, we do not know if offering cycling exercise during haemodialysis is an effective way to improve quality of life, and if this would be a cost-effective way to provide exercise training for this patient population. To determine whether or not this type of exercise training is effective, and provides value for money, this study compared cycling during haemodialysis treatment, three times per week for 6 months, with usual care that does not include routine delivery of any exercise training. Five regions of the UK were included in the study. We compared the results from the two groups at the start of the study and at 6 months, after correcting for age and diabetes status. We also assessed the economic impact of delivering the cycling during haemodialysis programme and interviewed people from different regions of the UK in both groups. The baseline assessments revealed a deconditioned population in the study. There was no difference in quality of life or any physical function measures between the group that performed cycling during haemodialysis and the usual-care group. Compliance with the exercise intervention was very poor. Interviews with patients showed that patient engagement with the exercise training was linked to the presence of an exercise culture, and leadership to provide this, in the renal unit. An economic evaluation showed that delivering cycling during haemodialysis would not be value for money when delivered to a deconditioned haemodialysis population. Ways to engage patients with exercise training during their haemodialysis treatment should be explored further.

Heart Failure Hospitalization in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis and the Effect of Intravenous Iron Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the effect of intravenous iron on heart failure events in hemodialysis patients. BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a common and deadly complication in patients receiving hemodialysis and is difficult to diagnose and treat. METHODS: The study analyzed heart failure events in the PIVOTAL (Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Hemodialysis Patients) trial, which compared intravenous iron administered proactively in a high-dose regimen with a low-dose regimen administered reactively. Heart failure hospitalization was an adjudicated outcome, a component of the primary composite outcome, and a prespecified secondary endpoint in the trial. RESULTS: Overall, 2,141 participants were followed for a median of 2.1 years. A first fatal or nonfatal heart failure event occurred in 51 (4.7%) of 1,093 patients in the high-dose iron group and in 70 (6.7%) of 1,048 patients in the low-dose group (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.94; P = 0.023). There was a total of 63 heart failure events (including first and recurrent events) in the high-dose iron group and 98 in the low-dose group, giving a rate ratio of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87; P = 0.0084). Most patients presented with pulmonary edema and were mainly treated by mechanical removal of fluid. History of heart failure and diabetes were independent predictors of a heart failure event. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a lower-dose regimen, high-dose intravenous iron decreased the occurrence of first and recurrent heart failure events in patients undergoing hemodialysis, with large relative and absolute risk reductions. (UK Multicentre Open-label Randomised Controlled Trial Of IV Iron Therapy In Incident Haemodialysis Patients; 2013-002267-25).

The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life in patients with chronic kidney disease trial: study design and baseline data for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise interventions designed to improve physical function and reduce sedentary behaviour in haemodialysis (HD) patients might improve exercise capacity, reduce fatigue and lead to improved quality of life (QOL). The PrEscription of intraDialytic exercise to improve quAlity of Life study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 6-month intradialytic exercise programme on QOL and physical function, compared with usual care for patients on HD in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial in 335 HD patients and randomly (1:1) assigned them to either (i) intradialytic exercise training plus usual care maintenance HD or (ii) usual care maintenance HD. The primary outcome of the study was the change in Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SF 1.3) Physical Component Score between baseline and 6 months. Additional secondary outcomes included changes in peak aerobic capacity, physical fitness, habitual physical activity levels and falls (International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Duke's Activity Status Index and Tinetti Falls Efficacy Scale), QOL and symptom burden assessments (EQ5D), arterial stiffness (pulse wave velocity), anthropometric measures, resting blood pressure, clinical chemistry, safety and harms associated with the intervention, hospitalizations and cost-effectiveness. A nested qualitative study investigated the experience and acceptability of the intervention for both participants and members of the renal health care team. RESULTS: At baseline assessment, 62.4% of the randomized cohort were male, the median age was 59.3 years and 50.4% were white. Prior cerebrovascular events and myocardial infarction were present in 8 and 12% of the cohort, respectively, 77.9% of patients had hypertension and 39.4% had diabetes. Baseline clinical characteristics and laboratory data for the randomized cohort were generally concordant with data from the UK Renal Registry. CONCLUSION: The results from this study will address a significant knowledge gap in the prescription of exercise interventions for patients receiving maintenance HD therapy and inform the development of intradialytic exercise programmes both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN N83508514; registered on 17 December 2014.

Stroke in Hemodialysis Patients Randomized to Different Intravenous Iron Strategies: A Prespecified Analysis from the PIVOTAL Trial.

Background: People with kidney failure treated with hemodialysis (HD) are at increased risk of stroke compared with similarly aged people with normal kidney function. One concern is that treatment of renal anemia might increase stroke risk. We studied risk factors for stroke in a prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of intravenous iron treatment strategies in HD. Methods: We analyzed data from the Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial, focusing on variables associated with risk of stroke. The trial randomized 2141 adults who had started HD <12 months earlier and who were receiving an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) to high-dose IV iron administered proactively or low-dose IV iron administered reactively in a 1:1 ratio. Possible stroke events were independently adjudicated. We performed analyses to identify variables associated with stroke during follow-up and assessed survival following stroke. Results: During a median 2.1 years of follow-up, 69 (3.2%) patients experienced a first postrandomization stroke. Fifty-seven (82.6%) were ischemic strokes, and 12 (17.4%) were hemorrhagic strokes. There were 34 postrandomization strokes in the proactive arm and 35 postrandomization strokes in the reactive arm (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 1.44; P=0.66). In multivariable models, women, diabetes, history of prior stroke at baseline, higher baseline systolic BP, lower serum albumin, and higher C-reactive protein were independently associated with stroke events during follow-up. Hemoglobin, total iron, and ESA dose were not associated with risk of stroke. Fifty-eight percent of patients with a stroke event died during follow-up compared with 23% without a stroke. Conclusions: In patients on HD, stroke risk is broadly associated with risk factors previously described to increase cardiovascular risk in this population. Proactive intravenous iron does not increase stroke risk.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL), 2013-002267-25.

Intravenous Iron Dosing and Infection Risk in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the PIVOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational studies have raised concerns that giving intravenous (IV) iron to patients, such as individuals receiving maintenance hemodialysis, might increase the risk of infections. The Proactive IV Iron Therapy in Haemodialysis Patients (PIVOTAL) trial randomized 2141 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis for ESKD to a high-dose or a low-dose IV iron regimen, with a primary composite outcome of all-cause death, heart attack, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Comparison of infection rates between the two groups was a prespecified secondary analysis. METHODS: Secondary end points included any infection, hospitalization for infection, and death from infection; we calculated cumulative event rates for these end points. We also interrogated the interaction between iron dose and vascular access (fistula versus catheter). RESULTS: We found no significant difference between the high-dose IV iron group compared with the lose-dose group in event rates for all infections (46.5% versus 45.5%, respectively, which represented incidences of 63.3 versus 69.4 per 100 patient years, respectively); rates of hospitalization for infection (29.6% versus 29.3%, respectively) also did not differ. We did find a significant association between risk of a first cardiovascular event and any infection in the previous 30 days. Compared with patients undergoing dialysis with an arteriovenous fistula, those doing so via a catheter had a higher incidence of having any infection, hospitalization for infection, or fatal infection, but IV iron dosing had no effect on these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The high-dose and low-dose IV iron groups exhibited identical infection rates. Risk of a first cardiovascular event strongly associated with a recent infection.

Intravenous Iron in Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous iron is a standard treatment for patients undergoing hemodialysis, but comparative data regarding clinically effective regimens are limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded end-point evaluation, we randomly assigned adults undergoing maintenance hemodialysis to receive either high-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a proactive fashion (400 mg monthly, unless the ferritin concentration was >700 µg per liter or the transferrin saturation was ≥40%), or low-dose iron sucrose, administered intravenously in a reactive fashion (0 to 400 mg monthly, with a ferritin concentration of <200 µg per liter or a transferrin saturation of <20% being a trigger for iron administration). The primary end point was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or death, assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. These end points were also analyzed as recurrent events. Other secondary end points included death, infection rate, and dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent. Noninferiority of the high-dose group to the low-dose group would be established if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary end point did not cross 1.25. RESULTS: A total of 2141 patients underwent randomization (1093 patients to the high-dose group and 1048 to the low-dose group). The median follow-up was 2.1 years. Patients in the high-dose group received a median monthly iron dose of 264 mg (interquartile range [25th to 75th percentile], 200 to 336), as compared with 145 mg (interquartile range, 100 to 190) in the low-dose group. The median monthly dose of an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent was 29,757 IU in the high-dose group and 38,805 IU in the low-dose group (median difference, -7539 IU; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9485 to -5582). A total of 320 patients (29.3%) in the high-dose group had a primary end-point event, as compared with 338 (32.3%) in the low-dose group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.04 for superiority). In an analysis that used a recurrent-events approach, there were 429 events in the high-dose group and 507 in the low-dose group (rate ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92). The infection rate was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing hemodialysis, a high-dose intravenous iron regimen administered proactively was superior to a low-dose regimen administered reactively and resulted in lower doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent being administered. (Funded by Kidney Research UK; PIVOTAL EudraCT number, 2013-002267-25 .).

Randomized Trial Comparing Proactive, High-Dose versus Reactive, Low-Dose Intravenous Iron Supplementation in Hemodialysis (PIVOTAL): Study Design and Baseline Data.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) iron supplementation is a standard maintenance treatment for hemodialysis (HD) patients, but the optimum dosing regimen is unknown. METHODS: PIVOTAL (Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis patients) is a multicenter, open-label, blinded endpoint, randomized controlled (PROBE) trial. Incident HD adults with a serum ferritin < 400 µg/L and transferrin saturation (TSAT) levels < 30% receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were eligible. Enrolled patients were randomized to a proactive, high-dose IV iron arm (iron sucrose 400 mg/month unless ferritin > 700 µg/L and/or TSAT ≥40%) or a reactive, low-dose IV iron arm (iron sucrose administered if ferritin <200 µg/L or TSAT < 20%). We hypothesized that proactive, high-dose IV iron would be noninferior to reactive, low-dose IV iron for the primary outcome of first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause. If noninferiority is confirmed with a noninferiority limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio of the proactive strategy relative to the reactive strategy, a test for superiority will be carried out. Secondary outcomes include infection-related endpoints, ESA dose requirements, and quality-of-life measures. As an event-driven trial, the study will continue until at least 631 primary outcome events have accrued, but the expected duration of follow-up is 2-4 years. RESULTS: Of the 2,589 patients screened across 50 UK sites, 2,141 (83%) were randomized. At baseline, 65.3% were male, the median age was 65 years, and 79% were white. According to eligibility criteria, all patients were on ESA at screening. Prior stroke and MI were present in 8 and 9% of the cohort, respectively, and 44% of patients had diabetes at baseline. Baseline data for the randomized cohort were generally concordant with recent data from the UK Renal Registry. CONCLUSIONS: PIVOTAL will provide important information about the optimum dosing of IV iron in HD patients representative of usual clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2013-002267-25.

Screening for biochemical abnormalities in urolithiasis patients.

BACKGROUND: The significance of biochemical screening in stone formers has been a debated topic. This study was conducted to investigate the frequency of biochemical abnormalities in our urolithiasis patients and to compare the abnormality between the first time and recurrent stone formers so that this information would help in assessing the value of biochemical screening in our practice. METHODS: Over a twenty-one month period, new and recurrent stone disease patients had one random blood specimen and two random 24-hour urine collections analysed for biochemical abnormalities. Serum was checked for calcium, urate, phosphate and creatinine. The urines were measured for volumes, calcium, oxalate, urate, citrate, cystine and pH. RESULTS: Out of total of 113 patients, 83 (73%) had some urinary or blood abnormality. Highest number of abnormalities were in urine. Low volume 33 (39.76%), hypercalciuria 33 (39.76%) and hyperoxaluria 20 (24.1%) were the main urinary abnormalities. Elevated serum creatinine in 10 (12.05%) was commonest blood abnormality. Females had significantly higher frequencies of low urinary volume (48% vs 21%, p=0.001), hyperoxaluria (38% vs 11%, p=0.002) and hypocitraturia (37% vs 0%, p<0.001). There was no significant difference of abnormality rate between first time and recurrent stone formers. CONCLUSION: A high frequency of urinary biochemical abnormality and equal abnormality frequencies among first time and recurrent stone formers highlights the significance of biochemical screening even in cases of initial stone presentation. We feel such diagnostic evaluation would help in providing precise treatment and efficient prophylaxis.