Background: IgA nephropathy is the most common primary GN. Clinical features of IgA nephropathy include proteinuria, which is the strongest known surrogate of progression to kidney failure. Complement pathway activation is a critical driver of inflammation and tissue injury in IgA nephropathy. Cemdisiran is an investigational RNA interference therapeutic that suppresses hepatic production of complement component 5 (C5), thereby potentially reducing proteinuria in IgA nephropathy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of cemdisiran in adult patients with IgA nephropathy at high risk of kidney disease progression. Methods: In this phase 2, 36-week, double-blind study, adult patients with IgA nephropathy and urine protein ≥1 g/24 hours were randomized (2:1) to subcutaneous cemdisiran 600 mg or placebo every 4 weeks in combination with the standard of care. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline at week 32 in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) measured by 24-hour urine collection. Additional end points included change from baseline in UPCR measured by spot urine, serum C5 level, and safety assessments. Results: Thirty-one patients were randomized (cemdisiran, N =22; placebo, N =9). Cemdisiran-treated patients had a placebo-adjusted geometric mean change in 24-hour UPCR of –37.4% (cemdisiran-adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline [SEM], 0.69 [0.10]) at week 32. Spot UPCR was consistent with 24-hour UPCR placebo-adjusted change of –45.8% (cemdisiran-adjusted geometric mean ratio to baseline [SEM], 0.73 [0.11]). Mean (SD) change in serum C5 level from baseline at week 32 was –98.7% (1.2) with cemdisiran and 25.2% (57.7) with placebo. Over 36 weeks, most adverse events were mild or moderate and transient; the most common adverse event after cemdisiran treatment was injection-site reaction (41%). Conclusions: These findings indicate that treatment with cemdisiran resulted in a reduction of proteinuria at week 32 and was well tolerated.

Paraquat poisoning associates very high mortality rate. Early treatment with hemoperfusion is strongly suggested by animal and human studies. Although the survival benefit of additional immunosuppressive treatment (IST) in combination with hemoperfusion is also reported since 1971, the large-scale randomized control trials to confirm the effects of IST is difficult to be executed. Therefore, we designed this nationwide large-scale population-based retrospective cohort study to investigate the outcome of paraquat poisoning with hemoperfusion and the additional effects of IST combined with hemoperfusion. This nationwide retrospective cohort study utilized data retrieved from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) of Taiwan. A total of 1811 hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of paraquat poisoning who received hemoperfusion between 1997 and 2009 were enrolled. The mean age of all 1811 study subjects was 47.3 years. 70% was male. The overall survival rate was only 26.4%. Respiratory failure and renal failure were diagnosed in 56.2% and 36% patients. The average frequency of hemoperfusion was twice. IST was added in 42.2% patients. IST significantly increases survival rate (from 24.3% to 29.3%, P<0.001). The combined IST with methylprednisolone, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone associates with the highest survival rate (48%, P<0.001). Moreover, patients younger than 45 years of age in the IST group had the best survival (41.0% vs. 33.7%, p<0.001). Our results support the use of IST with hemoperfusion for paraquat-poisoned patients. The best survival effect of IST is the combination of methylprednisolone, cyclophosphamide and daily dexamethasone, especially in patients with younger age.

Renal biopsy remains the golden standard diagnosis of renal function deterioration. The safety in native kidney biopsy is well defined. However, it is a different story in allograft kidney biopsy. We conduct this retrospective study to clarify the safety of allograft kidney biopsy with indication.All variables were grouped by the year of biopsy and they were compared by Mann-Whitney U test (for continuous variables) or Chi-square test (for categorical variables). We collected possible factors associated with complications, including age, gender, body weight, renal function, cause of uremia, status of coagulation, hepatitis, size of needle, and immunosuppressants.We recruited all renal transplant recipients undergoing allograft biopsy between January of 2009 and December of 2014. This is the largest database for allograft kidney biopsy with indication. Of all the 269 biopsies, there was no difference in occurrence among the total 14 complications (5.2%) over these 6 years. There were only 3 cases of hematomas (1.11%), 6 gross hematuria (2.23%), 1 hydronephrosis (0.37%), and 2 hemoglobin decline (0.74%). The outcome of this cohort is the best compared to all other studies, and it is even better than the allograft protocol kidney biopsy. Among all possible factors, patients with pathological report containing "medullary tissue only" were susceptible to complications (P < 0.001, 1.8 of relative risk).In modern era, this study demonstrates the safety of allograft kidney biopsy with indication. Identifying the renal capsule before biopsy to avoid puncture into medulla is the most important element to prevent complications.

Objective: Huddles are short, regular debriefings that are designed to provide frontline staff and bedside caregivers environments to share problems and identify solutions. Daily huddle implementation could improve medical safety work, problem identification and improvement, situation awareness and teamwork enhancement, the collaboration and communication between professionals and departments, and patient safety. This study aimed evaluated the effectiveness of a hospital-based huddle at a general medical ward in Taiwan. Methods: A Continuous Integration team was conducted by combining multidisciplinary frontline staff to huddle at a 74-bed general medical ward. Team Huddles started twice a week. A physical huddle run board was created, which contained four parts, including idea submitted, idea approved, working on an idea and standardizing. Problems were submitted to the board to be identified, and the solutions were evaluated through huddle discussion. We divided the problems into two groups: quick hits (resolved within 24– 48hrs) and complex issues (resolved > 48hrs). An anonymous questionnaire was designed to evaluate the huddle response. Results: A total of 44 huddles occurred from September 9th, 2020, to September 30th, 2021, and 81 issues were identified and resolved. The majority issues were policy documentation (n=23; 28.4%). Sixty-seven (82.7%) issues were defined as quick hits, and the other fourteen (17.3%) issues were complex. The mean hours to the resolution of quick hits was 5.17 hours, median 3.5 hours, and range from 0.01– 15.4 hours. The mean days to resolve completion issues were 19.73 days, median 7.5 days, and range 3.57– 26.14 days. An overwhelming 92.9% of staff responded that huddles help to expedite the process to reach treatment goals, reduce clinical mistakes, near misses, reduce patient incidences, and help teamwork enhancement, with rating of 4.52 (on a 5-point Likert scale). Conclusion: Implementing of multidisciplinary team huddle improved the accountability of issue identification, problem-solving and teamwork enhancement.