Background Patients with ESRD have minimal renal potassium excretion and, despite hemodialysis, often have persistent predialysis hyperkalemia. The DIALIZE study (NCT03303521) evaluated sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) in the management of hyperkalemia in hemodialysis patients. Methods In the DIALIZE study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b multicenter study, we randomized adults with ESRD who were managed by three-times weekly hemodialysis and had predialysis hyperkalemia to receive placebo or SZC 5 g once daily on non-dialysis days, and titrated towards maintaining normokalemia over 4 weeks, in 5 g increments to a maximum of 15 g. The primary efficacy outcome was proportion of patients during the 4-week stable-dose evaluation period who maintained predialysis serum potassium of 4.0-5.0 mmol/L during at least three of four hemodialysis treatments after the long interdialytic interval and did not require urgent rescue therapy to reduce serum potassium. Results In total, 196 patients (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age =58.1 [13.7] years old) were randomized to sodium zirconium cyclosilicate or placebo. Of 97 patients receiving sodium zirconium cyclosilicate, 41.2% met the primary end point and were deemed treatment responders compared with 1.0% of 99 patients receiving placebo (P,0.001). Rescue therapy to reduce serum potassium during the treatment period was required by 2.1% of patients taking sodium zirconium cyclosilicate versus 5.1% taking placebo. Serious adverse events occurred in 7% and 8% of patients in sodium zirconium cyclosilicate and placebo groups, respectively. The two groups displayed comparable interdialytic weight gain. There were few episodes of hypokalemia. Conclusions Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for predialysis hyperkalemia in patients with ESRD undergoing adequate hemodialysis.

BackgroundSpecial insoles and shoes designed to prevent foot ulcers caused by repetitive high pressures are recommended for patients with diabetes who have any of the following risk factors: neuropathy; peripheral vascular disease; foot deformities; previous ulcers; amputation; and skin pathologies. However, there is a need for increased knowledge regarding: a) differences in the peak pressure (PP) and pressure time integral (PTI) for different types of insoles; and b) the properties of the pressure distribution for insoles used over a period of several months. We present the results of a randomized trial to compare the plantar pressures of three commonly used insoles.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to compare the PP and PTI between three types of insoles. The secondary objective was to explore the long-term pattern of peak plantar pressure distribution and variations in specific regions of interest (ROI). The tertiary objective was to investigate the impacts of insole adjustments, how much the insoles were used, and the levels of patient satisfaction.MethodsIn a 2-year trial, 114 patients with type 1 (N = 31) or type 2 (N = 83) diabetes (62 men and 52 women; mean age, 57.7 ± 15.4 years; duration of diabetes, 12.3 ± 11.2 years; neuropathy, 38%), were randomized to be supplied with one of three different insoles. The ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) insoles were used in outdoor walking shoes. The 35 EVA group (N = 39) received soft custom-made insoles composed of EVA of 35 shore A hardness, the 55 EVA group (N = 37) received custom-made insoles composed of EVA of 55 shore hardness, and the control group (N = 38) received prefabricated insoles composed of a hard core with a top layer of soft 12 shore hardness microfiber. Using F-Scan®, the in-shoe plantar pressures were measured at seven ROI (hallux, metatarsal head 1, metatarsal head 2, metatarsal head 4, metatarsal head 5, lateral aspect of the mid-foot, heel) on five occasions during the study period. The plantar-pressure variables used were PP (main outcome) and PTI. The plantar patterns of load were explored, satisfaction and usage of the insoles were rated by the participants, and insole adjustments were recorded.ResultsA mixed model analysis estimated lower PP values in the heel regions for the 35 EVA and 55 EVA insoles (171 ± 13 and 161 ± 13 kPa, respectively) than for the prefabricated insoles (234 ± 10 kPa) (p < 0.001). Also for some of the other six ROI indications of difference in PP or PTI could be observed. The redistribution of peak plantar pressure for all of the insoles, was stable at the mid-foot, while the proportion of load on the distal area changed during the study period According to the self-reported answers (scale, 0–100), the average usage of the insoles was rated as 79 and satisfaction was rated as 85 (N = 75). Thirty-two percent of the subjects had not received foot care. Fourteen adjustments to insoles were made during the study period, and 86 pairs of insoles were exchanged due to wear, with 49% being exchanged in the 35 EVA group.Conc...

Background:It is currently unknown whether early immunomodulatory treatment in relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) can delay the transition to secondary progression (SP).Objective:To compare the time interval from onset to SP in patients with RRMS between a contemporary cohort, treated with first generation disease modifying drugs (DMDs), and a historical control cohort.Methods:We included a cohort of contemporary RRMS patients treated with DMDs, obtained from the Swedish National MS Registry (disease onset between 1995–2004, n = 730) and a historical population-based incidence cohort (onset 1950–64, n = 186). We retrospectively analyzed the difference in time to SP, termed the “period effect” within a 12-year survival analysis, using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis.Results:We found that the “period” affected the entire severity spectrum. After adjusting for onset features, which were weaker in the contemporary material, as well as the therapy initiation time, the DMD-treated patients still exhibited a longer time to SP than the controls (hazard ratios: men, 0.32; women, 0.53).Conclusion:Our results showed there was a longer time to SP in the contemporary subjects given DMD. Our analyses suggested that this effect was not solely driven by the inclusion of benign cases, and it was at least partly due to the long-term immunomodulating therapy given.