Bruce A. Cooper

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, there is considerable variation in the timing of the initiation of maintenance dialysis for patients with stage V chronic kidney disease, with a worldwide trend toward early initiation. In this study, conducted at 32 centers in Australia and New Zealand, we examined whether the timing of the initiation of maintenance dialysis influenced survival among patients with chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients 18 years of age or older with progressive chronic kidney disease and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) between 10.0 and 15.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area (calculated with the use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) to planned initiation of dialysis when the estimated GFR was 10.0 to 14.0 ml per minute (early start) or when the estimated GFR was 5.0 to 7.0 ml per minute (late start). The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: Between July 2000 and November 2008, a total of 828 adults (mean age, 60.4 years; 542 men and 286 women; 355 with diabetes) underwent randomization, with a median time to the initiation of dialysis of 1.80 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 2.23) in the early-start group and 7.40 months (95% CI, 6.23 to 8.27) in the late-start group. A total of 75.9% of the patients in the late-start group initiated dialysis when the estimated GFR was above the target of 7.0 ml per minute, owing to the development of symptoms. During a median follow-up period of 3.59 years, 152 of 404 patients in the early-start group (37.6%) and 155 of 424 in the late-start group (36.6%) died (hazard ratio with early initiation, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.75). There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of adverse events (cardiovascular events, infections, or complications of dialysis). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, planned early initiation of dialysis in patients with stage V chronic kidney disease was not associated with an improvement in survival or clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, 12609000266268.)

BACKGROUND: The use of indomethacin as a tocolytic agent in pregnant women appears to be accompanied by a low incidence of neonatal complications. However, the neonatal effects of indomethacin have been studied primarily in infants born after 32 weeks' gestation. This study was designed to examine the incidence of neonatal complications in very premature infants. METHODS: We identified 57 infants delivered at or before 30 weeks' gestation whose mothers had been treated with indomethacin for preterm labor and matched them with 57 infants whose mothers had not received indomethacin. The infants in the two groups were matched for sex, gestational age at delivery (mean [+/- SD], 27.6 +/- 2.0 weeks), exposure to betamethasone for 24 hours or more before delivery, and rupture of membranes 24 hours or more before delivery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in birth weight, Apgar scores, cord-blood gas values, frequency of multiple gestation, or incidence of respiratory distress syndrome. The proportion of infants who required exogenous surfactant was similar, as were ventilator settings at 24 hours, the incidence of chronic lung disease, and the incidence of sepsis. The infants exposed to indomethacin had a lower urine output and higher serum creatinine concentrations during the first three days after delivery. More indomethacin-exposed infants had necrotizing enterocolitis (29 percent vs. 8 percent, P = 0.005), intracranial hemorrhage grade II to IV (28 percent vs. 9 percent, P = 0.02), and patent ductus arteriosus (62 percent, vs. 44 percent, P = 0.05). More indomethacin-exposed infants with a patent ductus arteriosus required surgical ligation because of either a lack of initial response or a reopening of the duct after postnatal indomethacin therapy (50 percent vs. 20 percent of the unexposed infants, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal indomethacin therapy for preterm labor appears to increase the risk of serious neonatal complications in infants born at or before 30 weeks' gestation.

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to explore barriers to palliative care experienced by pediatric health care providers caring for seriously ill children. METHODS: This study explored pediatric provider perceptions of end-of-life care in an academic children's hospital, with the goal of describing perceived barriers to end-of-life care for children and their families. The report focuses on the responses of nurses (n = 117) and physicians (n = 81). RESULTS: Approximately one half of the respondents reported 4 of 26 barriers listed in the study questionnaire as frequently or almost always occurring, that is, uncertain prognosis (55%), family not ready to acknowledge incurable condition (51%), language barriers (47%), and time constraints (47%). Approximately one third of respondents cited another 8 barriers frequently arising from problems with communication and from insufficient education in pain and palliative care. Fourteen barriers were perceived by >75% of staff members as occasionally or never interfering with pediatric end-of-life care. Comparisons between physicians and nurses and between ICU and non-ICU staff members revealed several significant differences between these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived barriers to pediatric end-of-life care differed from those impeding adult end-of-life care. The most-commonly perceived factors that interfered with optimal pediatric end-of-life care involved uncertainties in prognosis and discrepancies in treatment goals between staff members and family members, followed by barriers to communication. Improved staff education in communication skills and palliative care for children may help overcome some of these obstacles, but pediatric providers must realize that uncertainty may be unavoidable and inherent in the care of seriously ill children. An uncertain prognosis should be a signal to initiate, rather than to delay, palliative care.

Importance: The effect of glucocorticoids on major kidney outcomes and adverse events in IgA nephropathy has been uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of methylprednisolone in patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney function decline. Design, Setting, and Participants: An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that enrolled 503 participants with IgA nephropathy, proteinuria greater than or equal to 1 g per day, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 20 to 120 mL/min/1.73 m2 after at least 3 months of optimized background care from 67 centers in Australia, Canada, China, India, and Malaysia between May 2012 and November 2019, with follow-up until June 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral methylprednisolone (initially 0.6-0.8 mg/kg/d, maximum 48 mg/d, weaning by 8 mg/d/mo; n = 136) or placebo (n = 126). After 262 participants were randomized, an excess of serious infections was identified, leading to dose reduction (0.4 mg/kg/d, maximum 32 mg/d, weaning by 4 mg/d/mo) and addition of antibiotic prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia for subsequent participants (121 in the oral methylprednisolone group and 120 in the placebo group). Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary end point was a composite of 40% decline in eGFR, kidney failure (dialysis, transplant), or death due to kidney disease. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including kidney failure. Results: Among 503 randomized patients (mean age, 38 years; 198 [39%] women; mean eGFR, 61.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; mean proteinuria, 2.46 g/d), 493 (98%) completed the trial. Over a mean of 4.2 years of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 74 participants (28.8%) in the methylprednisolone group compared with 106 (43.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.39-0.72]; P < .001; absolute annual event rate difference, -4.8% per year [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.6%]). The effect on the primary outcome was seen across each dose compared with the relevant participants in the placebo group recruited to each regimen (P for heterogeneity = .11): full-dose HR, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.41-0.81); reduced-dose HR, 0.27 (95% CI, 0.11-0.65). Of the 11 prespecified secondary end points, 9 showed significant differences in favor of the intervention, including kidney failure (50 [19.5%] vs 67 [27.2%]; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.40-0.87]; P = .008; annual event rate difference, -2.9% per year [95% CI, -5.4% to -0.3%]). Serious adverse events were more frequent with methylprednisolone vs placebo (28 [10.9%] vs 7 [2.8%] patients with serious adverse events), primarily with full-dose therapy compared with its matching placebo (22 [16.2%] vs 4 [3.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of progression, treatment with oral methylprednisolone for 6 to 9 months, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of the composite outcome of kidney function decline, kidney failure, or death due to kidney disease. However, the incidence of serious adverse events was increased with oral methylprednisolone, mainly with high-dose therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01560052.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether the addition of melatonin to bright-light therapy enhances the efficacy in treating rest-activity (circadian) disruption in institutionalized patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two nursing homes in San Francisco, California. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty subjects (mean age 86) with AD. INTERVENTION: Experimental subjects received 1 hour of morning light exposure (> or = 2,500 lux in gaze direction) Monday to Friday for 10 weeks and 5 mg melatonin (LM, n=16) or placebo (LP, n=17) in the evening. Control subjects (n=17) received usual indoor light (150-200 lux). MEASUREMENTS: Nighttime sleep variables, day sleep time, day activity, day:night sleep ratio, and rest-activity parameters were determined using actigraphy. RESULTS: Linear mixed models were employed to test the primary study hypotheses. No significant differences in nighttime sleep variables were found between groups. At the end of the intervention, the LM group showed significant improvement in daytime somnolence as indicated by a reduction in the duration of daytime sleep, an increase in daytime activity, and an improvement in day:night sleep ratio. The LM group also evidenced a significant increase in rest-activity rhythm amplitude and goodness of fit to the cosinor model. CONCLUSION: Light treatment alone did not improve nighttime sleep, daytime wake, or rest-activity rhythm. Light treatment plus melatonin increased daytime wake time and activity levels and strengthened the rest-activity rhythm. Future studies should resolve the question of whether these improvements can be attributed to melatonin or whether the two zeitgebers interact to amplify efficacy.