Federica Tripodi

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is still common in patients with chronic kidney disease. It has been recently discovered that chronic HCV is a risk factor for increased incidence of CKD in the adult general population. According to a systematic review with a meta-analysis of clinical studies, pooling results of longitudinal studies (n = 2,299,134 unique patients) demonstrated an association between positive anti-HCV serologic status and increased incidence of CKD; the summary estimate for adjusted HR across the surveys was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.26; 1.87), (p < 0.0001). The introduction of direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) has caused a paradigm shift in the management of HCV infection; recent guidelines recommend pan-genotypic drugs (i.e., drugs effective on all HCV genotypes) as the first-choice therapy for HCV, and these promise to be effective and safe even in the context of chronic kidney disease. Aim: The purpose of this narrative review is to show the most important data on pan-genotypic DAAs in advanced CKD (CKD stage 4/5). Methods: We recruited studies by electronic databases and grey literature. Numerous key-words (‘Hepatitis C’ AND ‘Chronic kidney disease’ AND ‘Pan-genotypic agents’, among others) were adopted. Results: The most important pan-genotypic combinations for HCV in advanced CKD are glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL). Two clinical trials (EXPEDITION-4 and EXPEDITION-5) and some ‘real-world’ studies (n = 6) reported that GLE/PIB combinations in CKD stage 4/5 gave SVR12 rates ranging between 86 and 99%. We retrieved clinical trials (n = 1) and ‘real life’ studies (n = 6) showing the performance of SOF/VEL; according to our pooled analysis, the summary estimate of SVR rate was 100% in studies adopting SOF/VEL antiviral combinations. The drop-out rate (due to AEs) in patients on SOF/VEL ranged between 0 and 4.8%. Conclusions: Pan-genotypic combinations, such as GLE/PIB and SOF/VEL, appear effective and safe for HCV in advanced CKD, even if a limited number of studies with small sample sizes currently exist on this issue. Studies are under way to assess whether successful antiviral therapy with DAAs will translate into better survival in patients with advanced CKD.

Kidney transplantation (KT) is recognized as the gold-standard of treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that receiving a pre-emptive KT ensures the best recipient and graft survivals. However, due to an overwhelming discrepancy between the organs available and the patients on the transplant waiting list, the vast majority of transplant candidates require prolonged periods of dialysis before being transplanted. For many years, peritoneal dialysis (PD) and hemodialysis (HD) have been considered competitive renal replacement therapies (RRT). This dualistic vision has recently been questioned by evidence suggesting that an individualized and flexible approach may be more appropriate. In fact, tailored and cleverly planned changes between different RRT modalities, according to the patient’s needs and characteristics, are often needed in order to achieve the best results. While home HD is still under scrutiny in this particular setting, current data seems to favor the use of PD over in-center HD in patients awaiting a KT. In this specific population, the demonstrated advantages of PD are superior quality of life, longer preservation of residual renal function, lower incidence of delayed graft function, better recipient survival, and reduced cost.

Background: Recently the protective role of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) against viral infections has been hypothesized. We evaluated the association between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility and severity in a cohort of kidney transplanted patients (KTxp). Methods: A total of 61 KTxp with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COV+) were matched with 122 healthy KTxp controls (COV−). Main biochemical parameters at 1, 6, and 12 months before SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded. Vitamin D status was considered as the mean of two 25(OH)D measures obtained 6 ± 2 months apart during the last year. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection was based on the need for hospitalization (HOSP+) and death (D+). Results: 25(OH)D levels were lower in COV+ than in controls [19(12–26) vs. 23(17–31) ng/mL, p = 0.01]. No differences among the other biochemical parameters were found. The SARS-CoV-2 infection discriminative power of 25(OH)D was evaluated by ROC-curve (AUC 0.61, 95% CI 0.5–0.7, p = 0.01). 25(OH)D was not significantly different between HOSP+ and HOSP− [17(8–25) vs. 20(15–26) ng/mL, p = 0.19] and between D+ and D− [14(6–23) vs. 20(14–26) ng/mL, p = 0.22] and had no significant correlation with disease length. Conclusions: During the year preceding the infection, 25(OH)D levels were lower in COV+ KTxp in comparison with controls matched for demographic features and comorbidities. No significant association between vitamin D status and SARS-CoV-2 infection related outcomes was found.