María Antonia Munar Vila

BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence on the fourth dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We evaluated the humoral response and effectivity of the fourth dose in the CKD spectrum: non-dialysis CKD (ND-CKD), haemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplant (KT) recipients. METHODS: This is a prespecified analysis of the prospective, observational, multicentric SENCOVAC study. In patients with CKD who had received a complete initial vaccination and one or two boosters and had anti-Spike antibody determinations 6 and 12 months after the initial vaccination, we analysed factors associated with persistent negative humoral response and higher anti-Spike antibody titres as well as the efficacy of vaccination on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity. RESULTS: Of 2186 patients (18% KT, 8% PD, 69% HD and 5% ND-CKD), 30% had received a fourth dose. The fourth dose increased anti-Spike antibody titres in HD (P = .001) and ND-CKD (P = .014) patients and seroconverted 72% of previously negative patients. Higher anti-Spike antibody titres at 12 months were independently associated with repeated exposure to antigen (fourth dose, previous breakthrough infections), previous anti-Spike antibody titres and not being a KT recipient. Breakthrough COVID-19 was registered in 137 (6%) patients, 5% of whom required admission. Admitted patients had prior titres <620 UI/ml and median values were lower (P = .020) than in non-admitted patients. CONCLUSIONS: A fourth vaccine dose increased anti-Spike antibody titres or seroconverted many CKD patients, but those with the highest need for a vaccine booster (i.e. those with lower pre-booster antibody titres or KT recipients) derived the least benefit in terms of antibody titres. Admission for breakthrough COVID-19 was associated with low anti-Spike antibody titres.

Las infecciones peritoneales siguen constituyendo una complicación muy relevante de la diálisis peritoneal, por su incidencia todavía elevada y por sus importantes consecuencias clínicas, en términos de mortalidad, fracaso de la técnica y costes para el sistema sanitario. Las prácticas de prevención y tratamiento de esta complicación muestran una notable heterogeneidad derivada, entre otros factores, de la complejidad del problema y de la escasez de evidencia clínica que permitan responder de manera clara a muchas de las dudas planteadas. El propósito de este documento es proporcionar una revisión completa y actualizada de los métodos de diagnóstico, prevención y tratamiento de estas infecciones. El documento se ha elaborado tomando como referencia de partida la guía más reciente de la Sociedad Internacional de Diálisis Peritoneal (2016). Mientras que para el capítulo diagnóstico se ha adoptado una estructura más narrativa, el análisis de las medidas de prevención y tratamiento ha seguido una metodología sistemática (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), que especifica el nivel de evidencia y la fuerza de las sugerencias y recomendaciones propuestas, y facilita actualizaciones futuras de la guía. La gran extensión y numerosas recomendaciones o sugerencias emanadas de la revisión ponen de manifiesto la complejidad y gran número de facetas a tener en cuenta para un adecuado abordaje de esta importante complicación de la diálisis peritoneal. Peritoneal infections still represent a most feared complication of chronic peritoneal dialysis, due to their high incidence and relevant clinical consequences, including direct mortality, technique failure and a significant burden for the health system. The practices for prevention and treatment of this complication show a remarkable heterogeneity emerging, among other factors, from the complexity of the problem and from a paucity of quality evidence which could permit to respond clearly to many of the raised questions. The purpose of this document is to provide a complete and updated review of the main methods of diagnosis, prevention and treatment of these infections. The document has been elaborated taking as a reference the most recent guidelines of the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis (2016). The diagnostic considerations are presented in a narrative style while, for prevention and therapy, we have used a systematic methodology (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), which specifies the level of evidence and the strength of the proposed suggestions and recommendations and facilitates future updates of the document. The length of the document and the many suggestions and recommendations coming out of the review underline the large number and the complexity of the factors to be taken into consideration for an adequate approach to this complication of peritoneal dialysis.

Background: Current guidelines establish the same hemoglobin (Hb) and iron biomarkers targets for hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in patients receiving erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) even though patients having PD are usually younger, more active and less comorbid. Unfortunately, specific renal anemia [anemia in chronic kidney disease (aCKD)] trials or observational studies on PD are scanty. The aims of this study were to describe current aCKD management, goals and adherence to clinical guidelines, identifying opportunities for healthcare improvement in PD patients. Methods: This was a retrospective, nationwide, multicentre study including patients from 19 PD units. The nephrologists collected baseline data, demographics, comorbidities and data related to anemia management (laboratory values, previously prescribed treatments and subsequent adjustments) from electronic medical records. The European adaptation of KDIGO guidelines was the reference for definitions, drug prescriptions and targets. Results: A total of 343 patients (mean age 62.9 years, 61.2% male) were included; 72.9% were receiving ESAs and 33.2% iron therapy [20.7% intravenously (IV)]. Eighty-two patients were receiving ESA without iron therapy, despite 53 of them having an indication according to the European Renal Best Practice guidelines. After laboratory results, iron therapy was only started in 15% of patients. Among ESA-treated patients, 51.9% had an optimal control [hemoglobin (Hb) 10-12 g/dL] and 28.3% between 12-12.9 g/dL. Seventeen patients achieved Hb >13 g/dL, and 12 of them remained on ESA after overshooting. Only three patients had Hb <10 g/dL without ESAs. Seven patients (2%) met criteria for ESA resistance (epoetin dose >300 IU/kg/week). The highest tertile of erythropoietin resistance index (>6.3 UI/kg/week/g/dL) was associated with iron deficiency and low albumin corrected by renal replacement therapy vintage and hospital admissions in the previous 3 months. Conclusion: Iron therapy continues to be underused (especially IV). Low albumin, iron deficiency and prior events explain most of the ESA hyporesponsiveness. Hb targets are titrated to/above the upper limits. Thus, several missed opportunities for adequate prescriptions and adherence to guidelines were identified.