Uremic pruritus is one of the most bothersome symptoms in patients with chronic renal failure. Its pathogenesis remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of uremic pruritus in hemodialysis patients and to correlate its presence and intensity with several clinical parameters. One hundred thirty patients on maintenance hemodialysis were included into the study. The intensity of pruritus was assessed by two methods: visual analog scale and specially adapted questionnaire scoring method. A significantly positive correlation (p < 0.00001) was demonstrated between the two methods for evaluating pruritus. Uremic pruritus was found in 40.8% of patients. An additional 36.1% of patients reported pruritus to have been present in the past during the renal disease period. Itching was generalized in 19% of patients; the remaining subjects suffered from scattered pruritus (50%) or pruritus in a single location (31%). A significant positive relationship (p < 0.02) was demonstrated between the total score of pruritus and duration of the hemodialysis period. Severity of pruritus and sleep disturbance caused by itching also significantly correlated (p < 0.05) with the duration of hemodialysis. Patients hemodialysed on polysulphone membranes more commonly suffered from pruritus than those on hemophane (p < 0.04) or cuprophane (p < 0.03) dialysis membranes. A marked relationship was demonstrated between the intensity of xerosis and prevalence of pruritus. Significantly more patients with very rough skin had pruritus compared to those with rough skin (p < 0.05) and those with slightly dry skin (p < 0.02). Itching was more common in female patients (p < 0.04), but patient age, underlying renal disease and erythropoietin intake did not correlate with the incidence or intensity of pruritus.

Background: Renal transplant recipients (RTR) are considered as a high-risk group of skin cancer development. Objective: The aim of the present studywas to find out the knowledge about the harmfulness of sunlight and the methods of sun protection among RTR. Material and Methods: 151 RTR (91 males and 60 females) were surveyed using a specially designed questionnaire. Results: The knowledge about the danger of sunlight exposure among RTR appeared to be very unsatisfactory. Only 40.4% of patients knew that the development of skin cancer is connected with the exposure to sunlight. Moreover, only 68.2% of investigated individuals considered RTR as a high-risk group of skin cancer development. Although 74.8% of patients were informed about the necessity of sun protection, only 11.3% could explain what the number of the SPF (sun protection factor) means. Females significantly more often knew that RTR are especially predisposed to the development of skin cancers (p = 0.0001) and significantly more frequently could explain what the SPF number means (p = 0.006). 72.8% of RTR (females significantly more often, p = 0.02) made efforts to avoid sunlight irradiation. However, only 5.3% of the examined patients routinely used creams with SPF (females significantly more often, p < 0.0001). More than a half of the patients (62.3%) did not apply any sun protection. Conclusions: The present study revealed the urgent necessity of education concerning the harmfulness of sunlight and the methods of sun protection among RTR. Moreover, it is postulated that every patient should be routinely examined by a dermatologist in a dedicated transplant patient clinic.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract