Background and objectives: Hyperuricemia is associated with hypertension, inflammation, renal disease progression, and cardiovascular disease. However, no data are available regarding the effect of allopurinol in patients with chronic kidney disease.Design, setting, participants, & measurements: We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of 113 patients with estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 ml/min. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with allopurinol 100 mg/d (n ‫؍‬ 57) or to continue the usual therapy (n ‫؍‬ 56). Clinical, biochemical, and inflammatory parameters were measured at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months of treatment. The objectives of study were: (1) renal disease progression; (2) cardiovascular events; and (3) hospitalizations of any causes.Results: Serum uric acid and C-reactive protein levels were significantly decreased in subjects treated with allopurinol. In the control group, eGFR decreased 3.3 ؎ 1.2 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , and in the allopurinol group, eGFR increased 1.3 ؎ 1.3 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 after 24 months. Allopurinol treatment slowed down renal disease progression independently of age, gender, diabetes, C-reactive protein, albuminuria, and renin-angiotensin system blockers use. After a mean follow-up time of 23.4 ؎ 7.8 months, 22 patients suffered a cardiovascular event. Diabetes mellitus, previous coronary heart disease, and C-reactive protein levels increased cardiovascular risk. Allopurinol treatment reduces risk of cardiovascular events in 71% compared with standard therapy.Conclusions: Allopurinol decreases C-reactive protein and slows down the progression of renal disease in patients with chronic kidney disease. In addition, allopurinol reduces cardiovascular and hospitalization risk in these subjects.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019. Unfortunately, there is a lack of evidence about the optimal management of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and even less is available in patients on maintenance hemodialysis therapy than in the general population. In this retrospective, observational, single-center study, we analyzed the clinical course and outcomes of all maintenance hemodialysis patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 12th to April 10th, 2020 as confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Baseline features, clinical course, laboratory data, and different therapies were compared between survivors and nonsurvivors to identify risk factors associated with mortality. Among the 36 patients, 11 (30.5%) died, and 7 were able to be discharged within the observation period. Clinical and radiological evolution during the first week of admission were predictive of mortality. Among the 36 patients, 18 had worsening of their clinical status, as defined by severe hypoxia with oxygen therapy requirements greater than 4 L/min and radiological worsening. Significantly, 11 of those 18 patients (61.1%) died. None of the classical cardiovascular risk factors in the general population were associated with higher mortality. Compared to survivors, nonsurvivors had significantly longer dialysis vintage, increased lactate dehydrogenase (490 U/l ± 120 U/l vs. 281 U/l ± 151 U/l, P [ 0.008) and C-reactive protein levels (18.3 mg/dl ± 13.7 mg/dl vs. 8.1 mg/dl ± 8.1 mg/dl, P [ 0.021), and a lower lymphocyte count (0.38 310 3 /ml ± 0.14 310 3 /ml vs. 0.76 310 3 /ml ± 0.48 310 3 /ml, P [ 0.04) 1 week after clinical onset. Thus, the mortality among hospitalized hemodialysis patients diagnosed with COVID-19 is high. Certain laboratory tests can be used to predict a worsening clinical course.

Background. Patients on kidney replacement therapy comprise a vulnerable population and may be at increased risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Currently, only limited data are available on outcomes in this patient population. Methods. We set up the ERACODA (European Renal Association COVID-19 Database) database, which is specifically designed to prospectively collect detailed data on kidney transplant and dialysis patients with COVID-19. For this analysis, patients were included who presented between 1 February and 1 May 2020 and had complete information available on the primary outcome parameter, 28-day mortality. Results. Of the 1073 patients enrolled, 305 (28%) were kidney transplant and 768 (72%) dialysis patients with a mean age of 60 ± 13 and 67 ± 14 years, respectively. The 28-day probability of death was 21.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 14.3–30.2%] in kidney transplant and 25.0% (95% CI 20.2–30.0%) in dialysis patients. Mortality was primarily associated with advanced age in kidney transplant patients, and with age and frailty in dialysis patients. After adjusting for sex, age and frailty, in-hospital mortality did not significantly differ between transplant and dialysis patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.59–1.10, P = 0.18]. In the subset of dialysis patients who were a candidate for transplantation (n = 148), 8 patients died within 28 days, as compared with 7 deaths in 23 patients who underwent a kidney transplantation &lt;1 year before presentation (HR adjusted for sex, age and frailty 0.20, 95% CI 0.07–0.56, P &lt; 0.01). Conclusions. The 28-day case-fatality rate is high in patients on kidney replacement therapy with COVID-19 and is primarily driven by the risk factors age and frailty. Furthermore, in the first year after kidney transplantation, patients may be at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality as compared with dialysis patients on the waiting list for transplantation. This information is important in guiding clinical decision-making, and for informing the public and healthcare authorities on the COVID-19-related mortality risk in kidney transplant and dialysis patients.

Endoscopic variceal ligation plus beta-blockers (EVL+BB) is currently recommended for variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, a recommendation that extends to all patients with cirrhosis with previous variceal bleeding irrespective of prognostic stage. Individualizing patient care is relevant and, in published studies on variceal rebleeding prophylaxis, there is a lack of information regarding response to therapy by prognostic stage. This study aimed at comparing EVL plus BB with monotherapy (EVL or BB) on all-source rebleeding and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and previous variceal bleeding stratified by cirrhosis severity (Child A vs. B/C) by means of individual time-to-event patient data meta-analysis (IPD) from randomized controlled trials. The study was IPD of 389 patients from 3 trials comparing EVL plus BB vs. BB and 416 patients from 4 trials comparing EVL plus BB vs. EVL. Compared with BB alone, EVL plus BB reduced overall rebleeding in Child A (incidence rate ratio 0.40; 95%CI 0.18–0.89; p=0.025), but not in Child B/C, without differences in mortality. The effect of EVL on rebleeding was different according to Child (p for interaction <0.001). Conversely, compared with EVL, EVL plus BB reduced rebleeding in both Child A and B/C, with a significant reduction in mortality in Child B/C (incidence rate ratio 0.46; 95%CI 0.25–0.85; p=0.013). Conclusion: Outcomes of therapies to prevent variceal rebleeding differ depending on cirrhosis severity. In patients with preserved liver function (Child A), combination therapy is recommended since it is more effective in preventing rebleeding, without modifying survival. In patients with advanced liver failure (Child B/C), EVL alone carries an increased risk of rebleeding and death as compared with combination therapy, underlining that BB is the key element of combination therapy.