Adam Morris

BACKGROUND: Accurate comparisons of haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) survival based on observational studies are difficult due to substantial residual confounding that arises from imbalances between treatments. Propensity score matching (PSM) comparisons confer additional advantages over conventional methods of adjustment by further reducing selection bias between treatments. We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared mortality between in-centre HD with PD using a PSM-based approach. METHODS: A sensitive search strategy identified all citations in the PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases from inception through November 2018. Pooled PD versus HD mortality hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated through random-effects meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-regression explored factors to account for between-study variation. RESULTS: The systematic review yielded 214 citations with 17 cohort studies and 113 578 PSM incident dialysis patients. Cohort periods spanned the period 1993-2014. The pooled HR for PD versus HD was 1.06 (95% CI 0.99-1.14). There was considerable variation by country, however, mortality risks for PD versus HD remained virtually unchanged when stratified by geographical region with HRs of 1.04 (95% CI 0.94-1.15), 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32) and 0.98 (0.87-1.10) for European, Asian and American cohorts, respectively. Subgroup meta-analyses revealed similar risks for patients with diabetes [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.98-1.21)] and without diabetes [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.09)]. Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 87%) and was largely accounted for by differences in cohort period, study type and country of origin. Together these factors explained a substantial degree of between-studies variance (R2 = 90.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that PD and in-centre HD carry equivalent survival benefits. Reported differences in survival between treatments largely reflect a combination of factors that are unrelated to clinical efficacy.

Abstract Key Points Glucocorticoid Toxicity Index provides a global quantifiable assessment tool to assess glucocorticoid associated morbidity. Cumulative doses of steroids in ANCA associated vasculitis leads to worse glucocorticoid related toxicity. Whilst glucocorticoids remain the mainstay of AAV treatment, the narrow therapeutic window supports the need for GC-sparing treatments. Background ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) is an autoimmune disease. Induction remission and maintenance treatment typically includes high-dose, tapering glucocorticoids (GC), in addition to other immunosuppressive medication. The use of theGlucocorticoid Toxicity Index (GTI) provides a global, quantifiable assessment tool in which clinicians can assess GC-associated morbidity. Recent trials in AAV have exposed the need for systemic assessment of GC burden. In this small cohort study, we look to address these issues and the justification of newer GC sparing agents, such as C5a inhibitors. Methods A retrospective cohort study of 43 patients with biopsy AAV was constructed from a single center between 2012–2016, and followed up for 48 months. The GTI table made up of adverse features was used to quantify patients’ GC toxicity. Electronic patient records were reviewed and scores calculated according to published methods. GTI scores were compared with cumulative steroid doses at separate intervals and incidences of adverse features in relation to the treatment timeline. Results The mean age was 65.9 (±11.06) years and treatment regimens consisted of glucocorticoids alongside cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Our results showed statistical significance in the association of cumulative GC doses and GTI scores ( P =0.008; 95% CI, 1.31 to 8.05). Adverse features relating to mood disturbance and GC-induced psychosis occurred early, in contrast to adrenal insufficiency, which typically presented later in the follow-up. Infection-related adverse events were consistent throughout. Conclusions We demonstrated that higher cumulative doses of steroids in AAV lead to worse glucocorticoid-related toxicity. Using the GTI creates the potential to individualize and quantify the adverse effects patients experience as a result of GC treatment and permits more patient-centered management. Although glucocorticoids remain the main adjunctive immunosuppression of AAV treatment, the narrow therapeutic window supports the need for GC-sparing treatments.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought on challenges not only to acute care, but also chronic care of patients. Individuals maintained on immunosuppression appear to be especially susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) frequently require immunosuppression and may be at increased risk for developing COVID-19. The incidence and impact of COVID-19 on patients with AAV is currently not known. We aimed to investigate this impact via a telephone questionnaire-based patient survey and chart review. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of AAV patients followed at two centers was conducted. Data regarding demographics, disease characteristics and therapy were confirmed by chart review. A telephone survey was conducted to ascertain symptoms and contact exposure related to COVID-19, as well as changes in health care delivery during the pandemic period between January and July, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 206 patients surveyed, the median age was 64 years, 51% were female and mean (SD) disease duration was 7 (5) years. The majority had kidney (n = 160) and lung (n = 108) involvement. Seventy-five percent (n = 155) were receiving immunosuppression, with 77 patients (50%) receiving rituximab during the pandemic period. Of the 10 patients tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) by PCR, three were positive. Patients had a significant disruption in care; none had an in-person visit and 69% had a telemedicine consultation. Rituximab maintenance was postponed in 21 patients. Twelve patients experienced disease relapse. CONCLUSION: The incidence of COVID-19 in patients with AAV appears to be similar to that of the general population. For a patient population that requires active clinical surveillance, there is significant disruption in care as a result of the pandemic. Reduction of immunosuppression may not be indicated, and the risk of relapse likely far outweighs the risk of COVID-19.

. confirms the risk and adds to the existing evidence by describing the highest risk in the first 3 months after diagnosis. In this review, we aim to put their findings into perspective and formulate implications for the care of AAV patients. We discuss mechanisms for increased CV disease in AAV, including the impact of traditional risk factors and disease-related risks such as renal impairment and anti-myeloperoxidase (MPO) ANCA serotype. We also provide a brief primer on the impact of inflammatory-driven endothelial dysfunction and platelet activation on accelerated atherosclerosis in AAV patients. These features alongside the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation provide potential explanations to why the incidence of CV events is highest in the first 3 months from diagnosis. We suggest future avenues of research, provide some suggestions to address and treat CV risk based on current evidence, and highlight the importance of addressing this topic early on. Addressing modifiable risk factors, dialogue with patients, patient information and a structured approach overall will be key to improve CV outcomes in AAV.

Over the past 3 decades, significant advancements in the understanding of the pathophysiology of ANCA-associated vasculitis has led to the development of a multitude of potential candidate biomarkers. Accompanied by the advent of increasingly effective therapeutic strategies, the need for a dependable biomarker to help determine the extent of disease activity and risk of relapse is ever present. Implementation of such a biomarker would enable tailored therapy, optimizing disease control while helping to mitigate unnecessary exposure to therapy and potential treatment-related damage. Although far from perfect, ANCA serology and B-cell population are the two main staple biomarker tools widely used in practice to help supplement clinical assessment. Over recent years, the application and progress of more novel biomarker tools have arisen in both organ-limited and multisystem disease, including genomics, urinary proteins, degradation products of the alternative complement system, cytokines, metabolomics, and biospectroscopy. Validation studies and clinical translation of these tools are required, with serial assessment of disease activity and determination of therapy according to biomarker status correlated with patient outcomes.