BackgroundThere are no national data on the magnitude and pattern of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in India. The Indian CKD Registry documents the demographics, etiological spectrum, practice patterns, variations and special characteristics.MethodsData was collected for this cross-sectional study in a standardized format according to predetermined criteria. Of the 52,273 adult patients, 35.5%, 27.9%, 25.6% and 11% patients came from South, North, West and East zones respectively.ResultsThe mean age was 50.1 ± 14.6 years, with M:F ratio of 70:30. Patients from North Zone were younger and those from the East Zone older. Diabetic nephropathy was the commonest cause (31%), followed by CKD of undetermined etiology (16%), chronic glomerulonephritis (14%) and hypertensive nephrosclerosis (13%). About 48% cases presented in Stage V; they were younger than those in Stages III-IV. Diabetic nephropathy patients were older, more likely to present in earlier stages of CKD and had a higher frequency of males; whereas those with CKD of unexplained etiology were younger, had more females and more frequently presented in Stage V. Patients in lower income groups had more advanced CKD at presentation. Patients presenting to public sector hospitals were poorer, younger, and more frequently had CKD of unknown etiology.ConclusionsThis report confirms the emergence of diabetic nephropathy as the pre-eminent cause in India. Patients with CKD of unknown etiology are younger, poorer and more likely to present with advanced CKD. There were some geographic variations.

BackgroundThere is a rising incidence of chronic kidney disease that is likely to pose major problems for both healthcare and the economy in future years. In India, it has been recently estimated that the age-adjusted incidence rate of ESRD to be 229 per million population (pmp), and >100,000 new patients enter renal replacement programs annually.MethodsWe cross-sectionally screened 6120 Indian subjects from 13 academic and private medical centers all over India. We obtained personal and medical history data through a specifically designed questionnaire. Blood and urine samples were collected.ResultsThe total cohort included in this analysis is 5588 subjects. The mean ± SD age of all participants was 45.22 ± 15.2 years (range 18–98 years) and 55.1% of them were males and 44.9% were females. The overall prevalence of CKD in the SEEK-India cohort was 17.2% with a mean eGFR of 84.27 ± 76.46 versus 116.94 ± 44.65 mL/min/1.73 m2 in non-CKD group while 79.5% in the CKD group had proteinuria. Prevalence of CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 was 7%, 4.3%, 4.3%, 0.8% and 0.8%, respectively.ConclusionThe prevalence of CKD was observed to be 17.2% with ~6% have CKD stage 3 or worse. CKD risk factors were similar to those reported in earlier studies.It should be stressed to all primary care physicians taking care of hypertensive and diabetic patients to screen for early kidney damage. Early intervention may retard the progression of kidney disease. Planning for the preventive health policies and allocation of more resources for the treatment of CKD/ESRD patients are imperative in India.

Identification of a biomarker that predicts response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would help evaluate the risk/benefit profile of ICS in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and guide treatment.The ISOLDE study randomised 751 patients (mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 1.4 L: 50% predicted normal) to fluticasone propionate 500 μg twice daily or placebo for 3 years, finding no difference in FEV1 rate of decline between treatments (p=0.16) and a significant reduction in median exacerbation rate with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.026). We re-analysed ISOLDE results by baseline blood eosinophil count to investigate whether eosinophil level predicts ICS benefit.Patients with eosinophils <2% (n=456) had a similar rate of post-bronchodilator FEV1 decline with fluticasone propionate as placebo (-2.9 mL·year(-1); p=0.688). With eosinophils ≥2% (n=214), the rate of decline decreased by 33.9 mL·year(-1) with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.003). Exacerbation rate reduction on ICS for fluticasone propionate versus placebo was higher in the eosinophil <2% group compared with the ≥2% group; time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was not different between treatments in either group.A baseline blood eosinophil count of ≥2% identifies a group of COPD patients with slower rates of decline in FEV1 when treated with ICS: prospective testing of this hypothesis is now warranted.

Inhaler device errors are common and may impact the effectiveness of the delivered drug. There is a paucity of up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of device errors in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This SR and MA provides an estimate of overall error rates (both critical and non-critical) by device type and evaluates factors associated with inhaler misuse. The following databases from inception to July 23, 2014 (Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process and CENTRAL) were searched, using predefined search terms. Studies in adult males and females with asthma or COPD, reporting at least one overall or critical error, using metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers were included. Random-effect MAs were performed to estimate device error rates and to compare pairs of devices. Overall and critical error rates were high across all devices, ranging from 50–100% and 14–92%, respectively. However, between-study heterogeneity was also generally >90% (I-squared statistic), indicating large variability between studies. A trend towards higher error rates with assessments comprising a larger number of steps was observed; however no consistent pattern was identified. This SR and MA highlights the relatively limited body of evidence assessing device errors and the lack of standardised checklists. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine differences in error rates between different inhaler devices and their impact on clinical outcomes. A key step in improving our knowledge on this topic would be the development of standardised checklists for each device.

No abstract