Few patients who require anticoagulation receive it in accordance with the guidelines even in a tertiary cardiology unit. There are many impediments to the effective use of VKA for stroke prevention among patients with AF.

Background COVID-19 vaccine is recommended in Peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, but a paucity of data is available regarding vaccine-related adverse effects among PD patients. Method A cross-sectional study was conducted in a single center between October and November 2021. PD patients were provided with the online survey link to participate in the study. Results A total of 107 PD patients responded to the survey (55%: male, 79%: Chinese, 40%: > 65 years old). Of these, 95% received the COVID-19 vaccine (77% received two doses and 22% received three doses). Most participants (91%) received Pfizer vaccine. The main source of vaccine information was from the government (48%). The most common reason to receive and refuse vaccines were the perception of the seriousness of COVID-19 infection (63%) and concern about vaccine safety (60%), respectively. After the first dose, 25% of patients developed one or more vaccine-related adverse effects. Common local adverse effect was pain at the injection site (21%), and systemic adverse effects were muscle pain (15%), fatigue (13%). Similar adverse effects were observed with subsequent doses. None of them required hospitalization for vaccine-related adverse effects. Female patients had a higher risk of developing adverse effects than male patients after the first dose (odds ratio: 3.37; 95% confidence interval: 1.25 – 9.08). No such difference was observed in the subsequent dose. Age, race, employment status and history of drug allergy were not associated with the risk of adverse effects. Conclusions The COVID-19 vaccine was well-tolerated by most PD patients, but few experienced non-severe adverse effects. All PD patients should be vaccinated against SAR-COV-2 infection. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11255-022-03302-5.

Background/objective: Prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is an important component of post kidney transplant care. We aimed to evaluate the impact of two different CMV prophylaxis protocols on the epidemiology and outcomes of CMV infections at our centre. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective before/after observational study. Kidney transplant recipients who received Protocol 1, a valacyclovir- or valganciclovir-based regimen prescribed for one to three months based on the CMV risk status between 2004 and 2008, were compared to those who received Protocol 2, a valganciclovir-based regimen prescribed for three months and six months for those at moderate and high risk, respectively, between 2010 and 2014. The impact of different prophylaxis regimens on the incidence of CMV infections, disease, recurrent infections and onset of CMV infection at 24 months were reviewed. Results: There were 192 patients included; 106 patients received Protocol 1, 86 received Protocol 2. At 24 months, the incidence of CMV infection was 53.8% and 55.8% in Protocols 1 and 2, respectively ( p=0.884). The incidence rates of CMV disease and recurrent CMV infections were higher in Protocol 1, but this was not statistically significant. The median time to first CMV infection was significantly shorter in patients who received Protocol 1: 132 days (interquartile range (IQR) 125–139 days) versus 185 days (IQR 178–192 days), p=0.001. Both prophylaxis protocols were well tolerated. Conclusion: The incidence of CMV infection was similar in both protocols. Where valganciclovir is not available, valacyclovir may be considered over no prophylaxis. Post-prophylaxis CMV infections are not uncommon, and vigilance for it should be advocated.

No abstract