Search

Background: Prognosis of HIV-infected patients on dialysis has improved. Few studies have compared survival between HIV-infected and HIV-negative patients on dialysis in the combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) era. We compared the outcome of HIV-infected patients on dialysis with a matched HIV-negative cohort., Methods: National, multicenter, retrospective cohort study of HIV-infected patients starting dialysis in Spain (1999-2006). Matching criteria for HIV-negative patients were dialysis center, year of starting dialysis, age, sex, and race., Results: The study population comprised 122 patients, 66 HIV-infected, and 66 HIV-negative patients. Median age was 41 years, and all but 4 HIV-infected patients were white. HIV-associated nephropathy was only present in 4 cases. HIV-infected patients were less frequently included on the kidney transplantation waiting list (17% vs 62%, P < 0.001). They also had more hepatitis C virus coinfection (76% vs 11%, P < 0.001), fewer cardiovascular events (62% vs 88%, P = 0.001), fewer kidney transplants (4.5% vs 38%, P < 0.001), and higher mortality (32% vs 1.5%, P < 0.001). Survival rates [95% confidence interval (CI)] at 1, 3, and 5 years for HIV-infected patients were 95.2% (89.9%-100%), 71.7% (59.7%-83.7%), and 62.7% (46.6%-78.8%). Five-year survival for HIV-negative patients was 94.4% (83.8%-100%) (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed the following variables to be associated with death in HIV-infected patients: peritoneal dialysis vs hemodialysis [hazard ratio; (95% CI): 2.88 (1.16-7.17)] and being on effective cART [hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.39 (0.16-0.97)]., Conclusions: Medium-term survival of HIV-infected patients on dialysis was lower than that of matched HIV-negative patients. Fewer HIV-infected patients had access to kidney transplantation. Being on effective cART improves survival. Further studies are needed to determine whether peritoneal dialysis increases mortality.

End-stage renal diseases (ESRD) are becoming more frequent in HIV-infected patients. In Europe there is little information about HIV-infected patients on dialysis. A cross-sectional multicenter survey in 328 Spanish dialysis units was conducted in 2006. Information from 14,876 patients in dialysis was obtained (81.6% of the Spanish dialysis population). Eighty-one were HIV infected (0.54%; 95% CI, 0.43-0.67), 60 were on hemodialysis, and 21 were on peritoneal dialysis. The mean (range) age was 45 (28-73) years. Seventy-two percent were men and 33% were former drug users. The mean (range) time of HIV infection was 11 (1-27) years and time on dialysis was 4.6 (0.4-25) years. ESRD was due to glomerulonephritis (36%) and diabetes (15%). HIV-associated nephropathy was not reported. Eighty-five percent were on HAART, 76.5% had a CD4 T cell count above 200 cells, and 73% had undetectable viral load. Thirty-nine percent of patients met criteria for inclusion on the renal transplant (RT) waiting list but only 12% were included. Sixty-one percent had HCV coinfection. HCV-coinfected patients had a longer history of HIV, more previous AIDS events, parenteral transmission as the most common risk factor for acquiring HIV infection, and less access to the RT waiting list (p < 0.05). The prevalence of HIV infection in Spanish dialysis units in 2006 was 0.54% HCV coinfection was very frequent (61%) and the percentage of patients included on the Spanish RT waiting list was low (12%).

This meta-analysis had the aim of studying the available studies on comparison between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis in the elderly. The final objective was to reach, if possible, evidence for potential differences. In the case that no differences could be demonstrated, contribute to accept that HD and PD are similar techniques to be offered to elderly people requiring dialysis. The question formulated was this: Do we have adequately contrasted data on results for survival, hospitalization rate, quality of life and morbidity on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in the elderly (more than 65 years old)? As data sources we selected eight papers that compared the general results of these two dialysis techniques. Different elements were considered in this selection because none reached the two first levels in the hierarchy of sources of evidence, and only two reached the third level--that of prospective studies; this is because an oral presentation of data has been included in a meta-analysis. Another four papers--uni- or multicenter retrospective studies compared the results obtained with PD and HD. The remaining two papers--reports from nationwide registries that compare of mortality rates, adjusted for co-morbid conditions and age, present specific results on groups of elderly patients. Three papers compare particular aspects of the two techniques, including nutritional status, psychiatric and psychosocial aspects and rehabilitation, in this case comparing PD with home hemodialysis patients. Finally, we have included the opinions of healthy elderly people on dialysis issues. This meta-analysis of these different studies suggests that the mortality and hospitalization rate of elderly people treated by PD is similar to that of similar people treated by HD. In consequence, we have no reasons to select either therapy on behalf of the patient. The nephrologist should consider and inform the patient and family about the relative advantages and disadvantages of both techniques and tailor dialysis technique choice to the specific individual to assure the best results. Local circumstances should also be considered.

We report a case of biopsy-proven temporal arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica with improved clinical symptoms with steroid treatment but with subsequent renal failure while on steroids. Kidney biopsy showed focal segmental necrotizing glomerulonephritis with crescents and small-vessel vasculitis. Treatment with methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide achieved normalization of renal function. We emphasize the importance of kidney biopsy because of its therapeutic implications. The previous literature concerning renal disease in temporal arteritis is discussed.

Given the high prevalence of the hyponutrition state among haemodialysis patients and knowing that this implies an increase in the rates of infection, hospitalisation and hospital stay, which translates into an increase in global morbid-mortality, the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN) and the Spanish Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (SENPE) have reached a consensus on the indications, contraindications, and limitations of Intra- Dialysis Parenteral Nutrition (IDPN.) This consensus considers IDPN as a valid alternative to other types of nutritional support when these show their lack of efficacy. The bases are set regarding the timing of nutritional intervention with IDPN, its ideal composition, the time of administration, its controls, follow-up schedules, and the time at which the nutritional support has to be discontinued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]