The prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is on the rise worldwide. Meanwhile, the number of older people requiring dialysis therapy is increasing as a result of this population. We found that starting dialysis in an unplanned manner is a common occurrence, even for patients with nephrology follow-up. Most centers choose hemodialysis with a high rate of central venous catheter use at the time of initiation of dialysis. Current data has found that central venous catheter use is independently associated with increased mortality and high bacteremia rates. Peritoneal dialysis is one option to avoid bacteremia. The International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis guidelines suggests a break-in period of at least two weeks prior to an elective start of peritoneal dialysis, without mentioning urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. For unplanned ESRD patients, it is unrealistic to wait for two weeks before initiating peritoneal dialysis therapy. Urgent-start peritoneal dialysis has been suggested to be a practical approach of prompt initiation of peritoneal dialysis after catheter insertion, which may avoid an increased risk of central venous catheter-related complications, including bacteremia, central venous stenosis, and thrombosis associated with the temporary use of hemodialysis. Peritoneal dialysis is the alternative option, and many studies have presented an interest in urgent-start peritoneal dialysis. Some reports have compared urgent-start hemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis and found that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis is a safe and effective alternative to hemodialysis for an unplanned dialysis patient. This review aims to compare each literature report regarding techniques, prescriptions, outcomes, complications, and costs of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis.

BackgroundCompared with other kidney replacement therapies, preemptive kidney transplantation (KT) provides better clinical outcomes, reduces mortality, and improves the quality of life of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). However, evidence related to the cost-effectiveness of preemptive living-related KT (LRKT) is limited, especially in low- and middle-income countries, such as Thailand. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of LRKT with those of non-preemptive KT strategies.MethodsCost and clinical data were obtained from adult patients who underwent KT at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand. A decision tree and Markov model were used to evaluate and compare the lifetime costs and health-related outcomes of LRKT with those of 2 KT strategies: non-preemptive LRKT and non-preemptive deceased donor KT (DDKT). The model’s input parameters were sourced from the hospital’s database and a systematic review. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Costs are reported in 2020 United States dollars (USD). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsOf 140 enrolled KT patients, 40 were preemptive LRKT recipients, 50 were non-preemptive LRKT recipients, and the rest were DDKT recipients. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic data, complications, or rejection rates of the three groups of patients. The average costs per life year gained were $10,647 (preemptive LRKT), $11,708 (non-preemptive LRKT), and $11,486 (DDKT). The QALY gained of the preemptive option was 0.47 compared with the non-preemptive strategies. Preemptive LRKT was the best-buy strategy. The sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust. Within all varied ranges of parameters, preemptive LRKT remained cost-saving. The probability of preemptive LRKT being cost-saving was 79.4%. Compared with non-preemptive DDKT, non-preemptive LRKT was not cost-effective at the current Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of $5113/QALY gained.ConclusionsPreemptive LRKT is a cost-saving strategy compared with non-preemptive KT strategies. Our findings should be considered during evidence-based policy development to promote preemptive LRKT among adults with ESKD in Thailand.

The study was conducted from October 2020 to March 2022 in a province in southern Thailand. The inpatients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 18 years old were enrolled. Of the 1511 inpatients with CAP, COVID-19 was the leading cause, accounting for 27%. Among the patients with COVID-19 CAP, mortalities, mechanical ventilators, ICU admissions, ICU stay, and hospital costs were significantly higher than of those with non-COVID-19 CAP. Household and workplace contact with COVID-19, co-morbidities, lymphocytopenia and peripheral infiltration in chest imaging were associated with CAP due to COVID-19. The delta variant yielded the most unfavorable clinical and non-clinical outcomes. While COVID-19 CAP due to B.1.113, Alpha and Omicron variants had relatively similar outcomes. Among those with CAP, COVID-19 infection as well as obesity, a higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. Among those with COVID-19 CAP, obesity, infection due to the Delta variant, a higher CCI and higher APACHE II score were associated with in-hospital mortality. COVID-19 had a great impact on the epidemiology and outcomes of CAP.