Background: The incidence of acute kidney injury ( AKI ) requiring dialysis in hospitalized patients is increasing; however, information on the long‐term incidence of stroke in patients surviving to discharge after recovering from AKI after dialysis has not been reported. Methods and Results: Patients that survived after recovery from dialysis‐requiring AKI during index hospitalizations from 1999 to 2008 were identified in nationwide administrative registries. The risk of de novo stroke and death were analyzed with time‐varying Cox proportional hazard models. The results were validated by a critical care database. We enrolled 4315 patients in the AKI ‐recovery group (men, 57.7%; mean age, 62.8±16.8 years) and matched 4315 control subjects as the non‐ AKI group by propensity scores. After a median follow‐up period of 3.36 years, the incident stroke rate was 15.6 per 1000 person‐years. The AKI ‐recovery group had higher risk (hazard ratio: 1.25; P =0.037) and higher severity of stroke events than the non‐ AKI group, regardless of progression to subsequent chronic kidney disease. The rate of incident stroke was not statistically different in those with diabetes alone (without AKI ) and in those with AKI alone (without diabetes) after hospital discharge ( P =0.086). Furthermore, the risk of mortality in the AKI ‐recovery group was higher than in the non‐ AKI group ( hazard ratio: 2.4; P <0.001). Conclusions: The patients who recovered from AKI had a higher incidence of developing incident stroke and mortality than the patients without AKI , and the impact was similar to diabetes. Our results suggest that a public health initiative is needed to enhance postdischarge follow‐up of renal function and to control the subsequent incidence of stroke among patients who recover from AKI after dialysis.

Introduction: Sepsis has been a factor of acute kidney injury (AKI); however, little is known about dialysis-requiring AKI and the risk of severe sepsis after survival to discharge. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study based on the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 1999 to 2009. We identified patients with AKI requiring dialysis during hospitalization and survived for at least 90 days after discharge, and matched them with those without AKI according to age, sex, and concurrent diabetes. The primary outcome was severe sepsis, defined as sepsis with a diagnosis of acute organ dysfunction. Individuals who recovered enough to survive without acute dialysis were further analyzed. Results: We identified 2983 individuals (mean age, 62 years; median follow-up, 3.96 years) with dialysis-requiring AKI and 11,932 matched controls. The incidence rate of severe sepsis was 6.84 and 2.32 per 100 person-years among individuals with dialysis-requiring AKI and without AKI in the index hospitalization, respectively. Dialysis-requiring AKI patients had a higher risk of developing de novo severe sepsis than the non-AKI group. In subgroup analysis, even individuals with recovery from dialysis-requiring AKI were at high risk of developing severe sepsis. Conclusions: AKI is an independent risk factor for severe sepsis. Even patients who recovered from AKI had a high risk of long-term severe sepsis.

Introduction: Sepsis is the leading cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critical patients. The optimal timing of initiating renal replacement therapy (RRT) in septic AKI patients remains controversial. The objective of this study is to determine the impact of early or late initiation of RRT, as defined using the simplified RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function, and end-stage renal failure) classification (sRIFLE), on hospital mortality among septic AKI patients. Methods: Patient with sepsis and AKI requiring RRT in surgical intensive care units were enrolled between January 2002 and October 2009. The patients were divided into early (sRIFLE-0 or -Risk) or late (sRIFLE-Injury or -Failure) initiation of RRT by sRIFLE criteria. Cox proportional hazard ratios for in hospital mortality were determined to assess the impact of timing of RRT. Results: Among the 370 patients, 192 (51.9%) underwent early RRT and 259 (70.0%) died during hospitalization. The mortality rate in early and late RRT groups were 70.8% and 69.7% respectively (P > 0.05). Early dialysis did not relate to hospital mortality by Cox proportional hazard model (P > 0.05). Patients with heart failure, male gender, higher admission creatinine, and operation were more likely to be in the late RRT group. Cox proportional hazard model, after adjustment with propensity score including all patients based on the probability of late RRT, showed early dialysis was not related to hospital mortality. Further model matched patients by 1:1 fashion according to each patient's propensity to late RRT showed no differences in hospital mortality according to head-to-head comparison of demographic data (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Use of sRIFLE classification as a marker poorly predicted the benefits of early or late RRT in the context of septic AKI. In the future, more physiologically meaningful markers with which to determine the optimal timing of RRT initiation should be identified.

Laboratory-based diagnostic measures including virological and serological tests are essential for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reactions (rRT-PCR) can detect SARS-COV-2 by targeting open reading frame-1 antibodies (ORF1ab), envelope protein, nucleocapsid protein, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase genes, and the N1, N2, and N3 (3N) target genes. Therefore, rRT-PCR remains the primary method of diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 despite being limited by false-negative results, long turnaround, complex protocols, and a need for skilled personnel. Serological diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is simple and does not require complex techniques and equipment, rendering it suitable for rapid detection and massive screening. However, serological tests cannot confirm SARS-CoV-2, and results will be false-negative when antibody concentrations fall below detection limits. Balancing the increased use of laboratory tests, risk of testing errors, need for tests, burden on healthcare systems, benefits of early diagnosis, and risk of unnecessary exposure is a significant and persistent challenge in diagnosing COVID-19.

Objectives: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide updated information regarding the clinical efficacy of remdesivir in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant articles published up to 18 November 2020. Results: Five RCTs, including 13 544 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 3839 and 391 patients were assigned to the 10 day and 5 day remdesivir regimens, respectively. Patients receiving 5 day remdesivir therapy presented greater clinical improvement than those in the control group [OR = 1.68 (95% CI 1.18–2.40)], with no significant difference observed between the 10 day and placebo groups [OR = 1.23 (95% CI 0.90–1.68)]. Patients receiving remdesivir revealed a greater likelihood of discharge [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.73 (95% CI 1.28–2.35)] and recovery [10 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.29 (95% CI 1.03–1.60); 5 day remdesivir versus control: OR = 1.80 (95% CI 1.31–2.48)] than those in the control group. In contrast, no mortality benefit was observed following remdesivir therapy. Furthermore, no significant association was observed between remdesivir treatment and an increased risk of adverse events. Conclusions: Remdesivir can help improve the clinical outcome of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a 5 day regimen, instead of a 10 day regimen, may be sufficient for treatment. Moreover, remdesivir appears as tolerable as other comparators or placebo.