Dataset Information

Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996-2009.

ABSTRACT: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have been reported to have increased risk of cancer. However, contemporary cancer burden estimates in this population are sparse and do not account for the high competing risk of death characteristic of dialysis patients.Retrospective cohort study.US adult patients enrolled in Medicare's ESRD program who received in-center hemodialysis.Demographic/clinical characteristics.For overall and site-specific cancers identified using claims-based definitions, we calculated annual incidence rates (1996-2009). We estimated 5-year cumulative incidence since dialysis therapy initiation using competing-risk methods.We observed a constant rate of incident cancers for all sites combined, from 3,923 to 3,860 cases per 100,000 person-years (annual percentage change, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0.6). Rates for some common site-specific cancers increased (ie, kidney/renal pelvis) and decreased (ie, colon/rectum, lung/bronchus, pancreas, and other sites). Of 482,510 incident hemodialysis patients, cancer was diagnosed in 37,128 within 5 years after dialysis therapy initiation. The 5-year cumulative incidence of any cancer was 9.48% (95% CI, 9.39%-9.57%) and was higher for certain subgroups: older age, males, nonwhites, non-Hispanics, nondiabetes primary ESRD cause, recent dialysis therapy initiation, and history of transplantation evaluation. Among blacks and whites, we observed 35,767 cases compared with 25,194 expected cases if the study population had experienced rates observed in the US general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.41-1.43). Risk was most elevated for cancers of the kidney/renal pelvis (SIR, 4.03; 95% CI, 3.88-4.19) and bladder (SIR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.51-1.64).Claims-based cancer definitions have not been validated in the ESRD population. Information for cancer risk factors was not available in our data source.These results suggest a high burden of cancer in the dialysis population compared to the US general population, with varying patterns of cancer incidence in subgroups.

SUBMITTER: Butler AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4924349 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996-2009.

Butler Anne M AM Olshan Andrew F AF Kshirsagar Abhijit V AV Edwards Jessie K JK Nielsen Matthew E ME Wheeler Stephanie B SB Brookhart M Alan MA

American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation 20150207 5

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have been reported to have increased risk of cancer. However, contemporary cancer burden estimates in this population are sparse and do not account for the high competing risk of death characteristic of dialysis patients.<h4>Study design</h4>Retrospective cohort study.<h4>Setting & participants</h4>US adult patients enrolled in Medicare's ESRD program who received in-center hemodialysis.<h4>Factors</h4>Demographic ...[more]

PMID: 25662835

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPost-dialysis recovery time (DRT) has an important relationship to quality of life and survival, as identified in studies of ESRD patients on conventional dialysis. ESRD patients are often discharged from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) where on-site treatment using home hemodialysis technology is increasingly offered, but nothing is known about DRT in this patient population.MethodsFrom November 4, 2019 to June 11, 2021, within a dialysis organization providing service across 12 states and 154 SNFs, patients receiving in-SNF, more frequent dialysis (MFD) (modeled to deliver 14 treatment hours minimum per week and stdKt/V ≥2.0) were asked to describe their post-dialysis recovery time following their previous treatment, within predefined categoric choices: 0-½, ½-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8, 8-12 h, by next morning, or not even by next morning. Patients reporting DRT following at least one full-week treatment opportunity were included in a mixed model logistic regression of rapid recovery (DRT ≤2 h).FindingsTwo thousand three hundred and nine patients met the statistical modeling inclusion criteria, providing DRT on 108,876 dialysis sessions, while receiving mean (SD) 4.3 (0.96) weekly dialysis treatments. 2118 (92%) reported DRT ≤2 h. Results appeared biologically plausible, as lower odds of rapid DRT were observed for patients who were older, missed their previous treatment, or experienced intradialytic hypotension. Greater odds of rapid DRT were observed in patients receiving five dialyses in the previous week or having 160-179 mmHg pre-hemodialysis systolic blood pressure. Rapid recovery was associated with reduced mortality or hospitalization.DiscussionSNF dialysis patients receiving 5x per week MFD report rapid recovery time ≤2 h in 92% of dialyses despite advanced age, frailty, and comorbidities. Future studies will assess the practical ramifications of rapid DRT perception/experience on nursing home rehabilitation programs, which could impact patient health beyond the nursing home stay.

Project description:Introduction Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which is a common co-morbidity in patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), results in substantial mortality and morbidity. However, there are still no effective therapeutic drugs available for HFpEF currently. Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to significantly improve clinical outcomes and reverse myocardial remodeling among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan in MHD patients with HFpEF remains unclear. Our study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in MHD patients with HFpEF. Methods A total of 247 MHD patients with HFpEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan were included in this retrospective study. Patients were followed up regularly after medication treatment. The alterations in clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters before and after taking sacubitril/valsartan were collected. In addition, the safety of the sacubitril/valsartan treatment was also assessed. Among those 247 patients with MHD, 211 patients were already in treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) before being treated with sacubitril/valsartan. We also performed an analysis to compare the differences between the 211 patients who had previously received ACEi/ARB treatment and the 36 patients who were sacubitril/valsartan naive. Results Among those 247 patients with MHD, compared with baseline levels, systolic blood pressure (BP) (149.7 ± 23.6 vs. 137.2 ± 21.0 mmHg, P < 0.001), diastolic BP (90.2 ± 16.1 vs. 84.5 ± 14.1 mmHg, P < 0.001), heart rate (83.5 ± 12.5 vs. 80.0 ± 8.7 bpm, P < 0.001), N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide precursor (NT-proBNP) [29125.0 (11474.5, 68532.0) vs. 12561.3 (4035.0, 37575.0) pg/ml, P < 0.001], and cardiac troponin I [0.044 (0.025, 0.078) vs. 0.0370 (0.020, 0.064) μg/L, P = 0.009] were markedly decreased after treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class showed a notable trend of improvement after 3–12 months of follow-up. Echocardiographic parameters including left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) (11.8 ± 2.0 vs. 10.8 ± 1.9 mm, P < 0.001), intraventricular septal thickness in diastole (11.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.2 ± 2.0 mm, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (53.8 ± 6.9 vs. 51.2 ± 7.1 mm, P < 0.001), left atrial diameter (LAD) (40.5 ± 6.2 vs. 37.2 ± 7.2 mm, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) [143.0 (111.5, 174.0) vs. 130.0 (105.0, 163.0) ml, P < 0.001], left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) [57.0 (43.0, 82.5) vs. 48.0 (38.0, 74.0) ml, P < 0.001], and pulmonary arterial systolic pressure [39.0 (30.5, 50.0) vs. 28.0 (21.0, 37.5) mmHg, P < 0.001] were significantly reduced after initiating the treatment of sacubitril/valsartan. The parameters of left ventricular diastolic function including E/A ratio [0.8 (0.7, 1.3) vs. 0.9 (0.8, 1.3), P = 0.008], maximal tricuspid regurgitation velocity [2.7 (2.5, 3.2) vs. 2.4 (2.0, 2.8) m/s, P < 0.001], septal e’wave velocity (8.0 ± 0.6 vs. 8.2 ± 0.5 cm/s, P = 0.001), lateral e’ wave velocity (9.9 ± 0.8 vs. 10.2 ± 0.7 cm/s, P < 0.001), E/e’ [8.3 (6.4, 11.8) vs. 7.2 (6.1, 8.9), P < 0.001], and left atrial volume index (37.9 ± 4.2 vs. 36.4 ± 4.1 ml/m2, P < 0.001) were significantly improved by sacubitril/valsartan. Among 211 patients who were already in treatment with ACEi/ARB and 36 patients who were sacubitril/valsartan naive, the improvement of cardiac function demonstrated by clinical outcomes and echocardiographic parameters were similar to the previous one of the 247 MHD patients with HFpEF. During the follow-up, none of the patients showed severe adverse drug reactions. Conclusion Our study suggested that sacubitril/valsartan treatment in MHD patients with HFpEF was effective and safe.

Project description:Most patients with end-stage kidney disease value their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and want to know how it will be affected by their dialysis modality. We extended the findings of two prior clinical trial reports to estimate the effects of frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis on additional measures of HRQoL. The Daily Trial randomly assigned 245 patients to receive frequent (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) in-center hemodialysis. The Nocturnal Trial randomly assigned 87 patients to receive frequent nocturnal (six times per week) or conventional (three times per week) home hemodialysis. All patients were on conventional hemodialysis prior to randomization, with an average feeling thermometer score of 70 to 75 (a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), an average general health scale score of 40 to 47 (a score from 0 to 100 where 100 is perfect health), and an average dialysis session recovery time of 2 to 3 hours. Outcomes are reported as the between-treatment group differences in one-year change in HRQoL measures and analyzed using linear mixed effects models. After one year in the Daily Trial, patients assigned to frequent in-center hemodialysis reported a higher feeling thermometer score, better general health, and a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session compared to standard thrice-weekly dialysis. After one year in the Nocturnal Trial, patients assigned to frequent home hemodialysis also reported a shorter recovery time after a dialysis session, but no statistical difference in their feeling thermometer or general health scores compared to standard home dialysis schedules. Thus, patients receiving day or nocturnal hemodialysis on average recovered approximately one hour earlier from a frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis session. Patients treated in an in-center dialysis facility reported better HRQoL with frequent compared to conventional hemodialysis.

Project description:BACKGROUND:On-line hemodiafiltration (HDF) clears more azotemic toxins compared to high-flux hemodialysis (HD). The response to vaccination is impaired in dialysis patients. We wished to determine whether the immune responses to influenza vaccine in dialysis patients treated by HDF were stronger than those treated by HD. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We conducted a prospective cohort study in chronic dialysis patients during the 2016 and 2017 influenza seasons. All participants received a single standard dose of trivalent influenza vaccine, and we studied the elicited humoral immune response by hemagglutination inhibition test, and cell-mediated immune response by enumeration of lymphocyte cellular markers and proliferation assays. RESULTS:We immunized 60 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients: 42 (70%) treated with HD and 18 patients (30%) with HDF. The median (interquartile range) age was 65.0 (55.0-74.5) years. All patients developed seroprotection to at least one influenza vaccine strain at one month post-vaccination, and did not differ between groups. By logistic regression, age was the only factor independently associated with seroconversion to all vaccine strains (odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.98; p = 0.022). Seroprotection to all vaccine strains was sustained for longer in patients treated with HDF, and the results remained the same after age adjustment. For cellular immune response, patients who seroconverted to all vaccine strains had higher CD38+ T cell subpopulations pre-vaccination. Patients treated by HDF had higher lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. CONCLUSIONS:Seroconversion to all influenza vaccine strains was associated with age. Patients treated with HDF demonstrated seroprotection was sustained for longer compared to those treated by HD and greater lymphocyte proliferation to circulating influenza A strains. These encouraging results for HDF require confirmation in a larger dialysis population. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04122222.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have suggested that urgent-start peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a feasible alternative to hemodialysis (HD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), but the impact of the dialysis modality on outcome, especially on short-term complications, in urgent-start dialysis has not been directly evaluated. The aim of the current study was to compare the complications and outcomes of PD and HD in urgent-start dialysis ESRD patients.MethodsIn this retrospective study, ESRD patients who initiated dialysis urgently without a pre-established functional vascular access or PD catheter at a single center from January 2013 to December 2014 were included. Patients were grouped according to their dialysis modality (PD and HD). Each patient was followed for at least 30 days after catheter insertion (until January 2016). Dialysis-related complications and patient survival were compared between the two groups.ResultsOur study enrolled 178 patients (56.2% male), of whom 96 and 82 patients were in the PD and HD groups, respectively. Compared with HD patients, PD patients had more cardiovascular disease, less heart failure, higher levels of serum potassium, hemoglobin, serum albumin, serum pre-albumin, and lower levels of brain natriuretic peptide. There were no significant differences in gender, age, use of steroids, early referral to a nephrologist, prevalence of primary renal diseases, prevalence of co-morbidities, and other laboratory characteristics between the groups. The incidence of dialysis-related complications during the first 30 days was significantly higher in HD than PD patients. HD patients had a significantly higher probability of bacteremia compared to PD patients. HD was an independent predictor of short-term (30-day) dialysis-related complications. There was no significant difference between PD and HD patients with respect to patient survival rate.ConclusionIn an experienced center, PD is a safe and feasible dialysis alternative to HD for ESRD patients with an urgent need for dialysis.

Dataset Information

Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996-2009.

Publications

Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996-2009.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets