BackgroundKidney transplant survival benefits are not observed for around 8 months after transplantation because of a higher complications rate in early post-transplant periods. This study compares survival of patients awaiting transplantation with survival of transplant recipients and non-listed dialysis patients in Ireland.MethodsIn this retrospective analysis, the relative-risk (RR) of death was assessed with time-dependent, non-proportional hazards analysis, with adjustment for age, cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), time from first treatment for ESKD to placement on the waiting list and year of initial placement on the list.ResultsA total of 3597 patients were included. Annual death rates per 100 patient-years at risk for all patients on dialysis, waiting-list patients and transplant recipients were 16.5, 2.4 and 1.2, respectively. Death rate was highest among diabetics. The relative risk of death for all patients on dialysis was five times higher than the waiting-list patients [RR, 4.90; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.70–6.52; P < 0.001]. Time to survival equilibration was 1 year. Thereafter, the 5-year mortality risk was estimated to be 47% lower than that of the patients on the waiting list (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37–0.77; P = 0.001).ConclusionsTransplant recipients had a higher risk of death initially, but a better long-term survival. Time to death risk equilibration was longer compared with other studies. This could be explained by better survival rates in our waiting-list cohort.
Inferior renal allograft survival was observed in recipients with higher variability in tacrolimus trough-levels.
Background and objectives An environmental trigger has been proposed as an inciting factor in the development of anti-GBM disease. This multicenter, observational study sought to define the national incidence of anti-GBM disease during an 11-year period (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014) in Ireland, investigate clustering of cases in time and space, and assess the effect of spatial variability in incidence on outcome.Design, setting, participants, & measurements We ascertained cases by screening immunology laboratories for instances of positivity for anti-GBM antibody and the national renal histopathology registry for biopsy-proven cases. The population at risk was defined from national census data. We used a variable-window scan statistic to detect temporal clustering. A Bayesian spatial model was used to calculate standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for each of the 26 counties.Results Seventy-nine cases were included. National incidence was 1.64 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.82 to 3.35) per million population per year. A temporal cluster (n=10) was identified during a 3-month period; six cases were resident in four rural counties in the southeast. Spatial analysis revealed wide regional variation in SIRs and a cluster (n=7) in the northwest (SIR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.06). There were 29 deaths and 57 cases of ESRD during a mean follow-up of 2.9 years. Greater distance from diagnosis site to treating center, stratified by median distance traveled, did not significantly affect patient (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.87 to 3.77) or renal (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.13) survival.Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study to report national incidence rates of anti-GBM disease and formally investigate patterns of incidence. Clustering of cases in time and space supports the hypothesis of an environmental trigger for disease onset. The substantial variability in regional incidence highlights the need for comprehensive country-wide studies to improve our understanding of the etiology of anti-GBM disease.
BackgroundImpaired blood pressure (BP) stabilisation after standing, defined using beat-to-beat measurements, has been shown to predict important health outcomes. We aimed to define the relationship between individual classes of antihypertensive agent and BP stabilisation among hypertensive older adults.MethodsCross-sectional analysis from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, a cohort study of Irish adults aged 50 years and over. Beat-to-beat BP was recorded in participants undergoing an active stand test. We defined grade 1 hypertension according to European Society of Cardiology criteria (systolic BP [SBP] 140-159mmHg ± diastolic BP [DBP] 90-99mmHg). Outcomes were: (i) initial orthostatic hypotension (IOH) (SBP drop ≥40mmHg ± DBP drop ≥20mmHg within 15 seconds [s] of standing accompanied by symptoms); (ii) sustained OH (SBP drop ≥20mmHg ± DBP drop ≥10mmHg from 60 to 110s inclusive); (iii) impaired BP stabilisation (SBP drop ≥20mmHg ± DBP drop ≥10mmHg at any 10s interval during the test). Outcomes were assessed using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.ResultsA total of 536 hypertensive participants were receiving monotherapy with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitor (n = 317, 59.1%), beta-blocker (n = 89, 16.6%), calcium channel blocker (n = 89, 16.6%) or diuretic (n = 41, 7.6%). A further 783 untreated participants met criteria for grade 1 hypertension. Beta-blockers were associated with increased odds of initial OH (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31–3.21) and sustained OH (OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.87–6.03) versus untreated grade 1 hypertension. Multivariable adjustment did not attenuate the results. Impaired BP stabilisation was evident at 20s (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.58–4.25) and persisted at 110s (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.64–5.11). No association was found between the other agents and any study outcome.ConclusionBeta-blocker monotherapy was associated with a >2-fold increased odds of initial OH and a >3-fold increased odds of sustained OH and impaired BP stabilisation, compared to untreated grade 1 hypertension. These findings support existing literature questioning the role of beta-blockers as first line agents for essential hypertension.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.