Background: Cancer immunotherapy, such as anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1), has revolutionized the treatment of malignancies by engaging the patient's own immune system against the tumor rather than targeting the cancer directly. These therapies have demonstrated a significant benefit in the treatment of melanomas and other cancers. Summary: In order to provide an extensive overview of the renal toxicities induced by these agents, a Medline search was conducted of published literature related to ipilimumab-, pembrolizumab-, and nivolumab-induced kidney toxicity. In addition, primary data from the initial clinical trials of these agents and the FDA adverse reporting system database were also reviewed to determine renal adverse events. Acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), podocytopathy, and hyponatremia were toxicities caused by ipilimumab. The main adverse effect associated with both the PD-1 inhibitors was AIN. The onset of kidney injury seen with PD-1 inhibitors is usually late (3-10 months) compared to CTLA-4 antagonists related renal injury, which happens earlier (2-3 months). PD-1 as opposed to CTLA-4 inhibitors has been associated with kidney rejection in transplantation. Steroids appear to be effective in treating the immune-related adverse effects noted with these agents. Key Message: Although initially thought to be rare, the incidence rates of renal toxicities might be higher (9.9-29%) as identified by recent studies. As a result, obtaining knowledge about renal toxicities of immune checkpoint inhibitors is extremely important.
Background. Pregnancy occurs among 1–7% of women on chronic dialysis. Experience regarding pregnancy and dialysis originates from anecdotal reports, case series and surveys. This survey updates the US nephrologists’ experience with pregnancy on hemodialysis (HD) over the past 5 years. We evaluated maternal and fetal outcomes, certain practice patterns such as dialysis regimens utilized and nephrologist knowledge and comfort level when caring for a pregnant patient on HD. Methods. An anonymous Internet-based 23-question survey was e-mailed to end-stage renal disease Networks of America program directors for forwarding to practicing nephrologists. Results. A total of 196 nephrologists responded to the survey, reporting >187 pregnancies. Of the respondents, 45% had cared for pregnant females on HD and 78% of pregnancies resulted in live births. In 44% of the pregnancies a diagnosis of preeclampsia was made. There were no maternal deaths. Nephrologists most commonly prescribe 4–4.5 h of HD 6 days/week for pregnant women on dialysis. Women dialyzed cumulatively for >20 h/week were 2.2 times more likely to develop preeclampsia than those who received ≤20 h of HD per week. Conclusion. Providing intensive HD is a common treatment approach when dialyzing pregnant women. Maternal and fetal outcomes can be improved. There is a trend toward better live birthrates with more intense HD. Whether more cumulative hours of dialysis per week increases the risk of preeclampsia needs to be further investigated.
Background:Survival and hospitalization are critically important outcomes considered when choosing between intensive hemodialysis (HD), conventional HD, and peritoneal dialysis (PD). However, the comparative effectiveness of these modalities is unclear.Objective:We had the following aims: (1) to compare the association of mortality and hospitalization in patients undergoing intensive HD, compared with conventional HD or PD and (2) to appraise the methodological quality of the supporting evidence.Data Sources:MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CENTRAL, and nephrology conference abstracts.Study Eligibility, Participants, and Interventions:We included cohort studies with comparator arm, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >50% of adult patients (≥18 years) comparing any form of intensive HD (>4 sessions/wk or >5.5 h/session) with any form of chronic dialysis (PD, HD ≤4 sessions/wk or ≤5.5 h/session), that reported at least 1 predefined outcome (mortality or hospitalization).Methods:We used the GRADE approach to systematic reviews and quality appraisal. Two reviewers screened citations and full-text articles, and extracted study-level data independently, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We pooled effect estimates of randomized and observational studies separately using generic inverse variance with random effects models, and used fixed-effects models when only 2 studies were available for pooling. Predefined subgroups for the intensive HD cohorts were classified by nocturnal versus short daily HD and home versus in-center HD.Results:Twenty-three studies with a total of 70 506 patients were included. Of the observational studies, compared with PD, intensive HD had a significantly lower mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.84; I2 = 91%). Compared with conventional HD, home nocturnal (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.38-0.55; I2 = 0%), in-center nocturnal (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.90; I2 = 57%) and home short daily (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.95; I2 = 82%) intensive regimens had lower mortality. Of the 2 RCTs assessing mortality, in-center short daily HD had lower mortality (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.31-0.93), while home nocturnal HD had higher mortality (HR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.27-11.79) in long-term observational follow-up. Hospitalization days per patient-year (mean difference: –1.98; 95% CI: –2.37 to −1.59; I2 = 6%) were lower in nocturnal compared with conventional HD. Quality of evidence was similarly low or very low in RCTs (due to imprecision) and observational studies (due to residual confounding and selection bias).Limitations:The overall quality of evidence was low or very low for critical outcomes. Outcomes such as quality of life, transplantation, and vascular access outcomes were not included in our review.Conclusions:Intensive HD regimens may be associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization compared with conventional HD or PD. As the quality of supporting evidence is low, patients who place a high value on survival must be adequately advised and counseled of ris...
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.