Background and aims: Prevalence of various types of kidney diseases in Nepalese population has largely been unknown. Knowledge of the prevalence of specific type kidney disease in renal patients has important implications in starting the treatment modalities and prognostification of these patients. We tried to find out the various types of kidney diseases in patient population undergoing kidney biopsy at our centre.
BackgroundThe current standard for induction phase treatment of lupus nephritis is steroid combined with mycophenolate mofetil or pulse intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC). The lowest dose of IVC recommended for induction therapy is that used in the Euro-Lupus Trial. It is not known whether same cumulative dose of IVC would be effective when given over six months.MethodsWe carried out a prospective, observational study on 41 patients of biopsy-proven lupus nephritis (class III, IV, V or mixed). For induction, patients received six pulses of monthly IVC (500 mg each), along with steroid. Patients were followed up monthly until one month beyond completion of the sixth pulse. The outcomes assessed were complete remission (proteinuria < 200 mg/day or urine albumin nil with serum albumin >35 gm/L, stable estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) if normal at baseline or increase in eGFR by 25 % if abnormal at baseline and normal urinary sediment), response (complete or partial remissions), complications of therapy and death.ResultsTwenty two patients (53.7 %) had class IV nephritis. Eighteen patients (43.9 %) achieved complete remission, 16 (39.0 %) achieved partial remission, yielding an overall response rate of 82.9 %. Nephrotic range proteinuria (UTP ≥ 3 g/day) and severe hypoalbuminemia (serum albumin < 20 g/L) at baseline influenced remission (p <0.05). Infection, seen in 12 patients (29.3 %), was the most common complication. Four deaths (9.6 %) were observed, all due to infection.ConclusionsFor induction phase treatment, Nepalese patients with lupus nephritis responded favorably to steroid and low dose IVC of 3 grams given as six monthly pulses.
Aims
(1) To determine incidence and reasons for transfer from maintenance haemodialysis (HD) to peritoneal dialysis (PD); (2) To compare mortality of HD patients transferred to PD with those who initiated and remained on PD.
Methods
A 1:2 matched cohort of ANZDATA included patients dialyzing over 3 months dividing into 2 groups. Group A (HD to PD) was compared to group B (initiated and remained on PD) and matched PD group (Group C). We compared mortality by total time on dialysis regardless of modality.
Results
Of 20 882 patients, there were 911 in group A. The transfer rate from HD to PD was 5%, 6.7% and 7.4% at 1,4 and 8 years, respectively. Median time before switching of patients in Group A was 5.9 (4.0–10.9) months. The commonest reported reason for transfer was patient preference (63.8%). Mortality was significantly worse in Group A if dialysis vintage was ≤6 months and from 12–24 months (P < 0.05), whereas there was no difference in mortality if dialysis vintage was 6–12 months or ≥ 24 months (P = 0.073 and P = 0.153, respectively). Overall, mortality of patients in group A was higher than that in group B after adjusting for age, race, chronic lung disease, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, haemoglobin and phosphate (hazard ratio = 1.335, 95% confidence interval = 1.172–1.520).
Conclusion
Haemodialysis patients transferred to PD had higher mortality than those initiated on PD, strengthening the case for PD first policy.
One-year patient survival, graft survival and secondary outcomes of our kidney transplant recipients, with our limited facilities, were within acceptable limits.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.