The association of functional status with mortality and dialysis modality change : results from the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS)

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of functional impairment in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients, its variation by country, and its association with mortality or transfer to hemodialysis. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in PD patients from 7 countries in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) (2014 - 2017). Functional status (FS) was assessed by combining self-reports of 8 instrumental and 5 basic activities of daily living, using the Lawton-Brody and the Katz questionnaires. Summary FS scores, ranging from 1.25 (most dependent) to 13 (independent), were based on the patient's ability to perform each activity with or without assistance. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval [CI]) of a FS score < 11 comparing each country with the United States (US). Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) for the effect of a low FS score on mortality and transfer to hemodialysis, adjusting for case mix. RESULTS: Of 2,593 patients with complete data on FS, 48% were fully independent (FS = 13), 32% had a FS score 11 to < 13, 14% had a FS score 8 to < 11, and 6% had a FS score < 8. Relative to the US, low FS scores (< 11; more dependent) were more frequent in Thailand (OR = 10.48, 5.90 - 18.60) and the United Kingdom (UK) (OR = 3.29, 1.77 - 6.08), but similar in other PDOPPS countries. The FS score was inversely and monotonically associated with mortality but not with transfer to hemodialysis; the HR, comparing a FS score < 8 vs 13, was 4.01 (2.44 - 6.61) for mortality and 0.91 (0.58 - 1.43) for transfer to hemodialysis. CONCLUSION: Regional differences in FS scores observed across PDOPPS countries may have been partly due to differences in regional patient selection for PD. Functional impairment was associated with mortality but not with permanent transfer to hemodialysis

Effects of Music Intervention on Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis in the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Hospitals

This research focused on the use of music interventions in 54 patients receiving hemodialysis treatments at the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration hospitals. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of live music or music listening interventions on pre- and postmeasures of patients\u27 blood pressure, pulse rate, pain, and anxiety. The results showed significant improvements in blood pressure and pulse rate and statistically significant reductions in pain and anxiety for patients in both music interventions (P \u3c .05). There were no significant differences in these effects between live music intervention and music listening. Both kinds of music interventions were found to significantly reduce the rate of perceived pain and anxiety. It can be summarized that both types of music interventions can be used according to patients\u27 need and necessity, and concern of budget, personnel, and facility within each hospital are taken into consideration. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT

Intraperitoneal cefepime monotherapy versus combination therapy of cefazolin plus ceftazidime for empirical treatment of CAPD-associated peritonitis: A multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial

Rationale & Objective: Compared to combination therapy, intraperitoneal (IP) cefepime monotherapy for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD)-associated peritonitis may provide potential benefits in lowering staff burden, shortening time-consuming antibiotic preparation, and reducing bag contamination risk. This study sought to evaluate whether cefepime monotherapy is noninferior to combination regimens. Study Design: Multicenter, open-label, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial. Setting & Participants: Adult incident peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients with CAPD-associated peritonitis in 8 PD centers in Thailand. Interventions: Random assignment to either IP monotherapy of cefepime, 1 g/d, or IP combination of cefazolin and ceftazidime, 1 g/d, both given as continuous dosing. Outcomes: Primary end point: resolution of peritonitis at day 10 (primary treatment response). Secondary outcomes: initial response (day 5), complete cure (relapse/recurrence-free response 28 days after treatment completion), relapsing/recurrent peritonitis, and death from any cause. Noninferiority would be confirmed for the primary outcome if the lower margin of the 1-sided 95% CI was not less than −10% for difference in the primary response rate. A 2-sided 90% CI was used to demonstrate the upper or lower border of the 1-sided 95% CI. Results: There were 144 eligible patients with CAPD-associated peritonitis, of whom 70 and 74 patients were in the monotherapy and combination-therapy groups, respectively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were not different between the groups. The primary response was 82.6% in the monotherapy group and 81.1% in the combination-therapy group (treatment difference, 1.5%; 90% CI, −9.1% to 12.1%; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the monotherapy group compared with the combination-therapy group in terms of initial response rate (65.7% vs 60.8%; treatment difference, 4.9%; 95% CI, −10.8% to 20.6%; P = 0.5) and complete cure rate (80.0% vs 80.6%; treatment difference, −0.6%; 95% CI, −13.9% to 12.8%; P = 0.7). Relapsing and recurrent peritonitis occurred in 4.6% and 4.6% of the monotherapy group and 4.2% and 5.6% of the combination-therapy group (P = 0.9 and P = 0.8, respectively). There was nominally higher all-cause mortality in the monotherapy group (7.1% vs 2.7%; treatment difference, 4.4%; 95% CI, −2.6% to 11.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.2). Limitation: Not double blind. Conclusions: IP cefepime monotherapy was noninferior to conventional combination therapy for resolution of CAPD-associated peritonitis at day 10 and may be a reasonable alternative first-line treatment. Funding: This study is supported by The Kidney Foundation of Thailand (R5879), Thailand; Rachadaphiseksompotch Fund (RA56/006) and Rachadaphicseksompotch Endorsement Fund (CU-GRS_61_06_30_01), Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; National Research Council of Thailand (156/2560), Thailand; and Thailand Research Foundation (IRG5780017), Thailand. Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02872038